JESUS’ DOCTRINE OF
MARRIAGE
DIVORCE
REMARRIAGE
John D. Keller
Copyright © 2006 by John D. Keller All rights reserved
Produced in association with:
Goose River Press, Waldoboro, Maine
Dedication
To the children of broken families and especially to
that little Amy and little Tommy who long to live
with their creation-marriage biological father or
mother; and by all of God’s love and righteousness
deserve and have the absolute right to have it so.
And to all the creation-marriage husbands and wives
who have been betrayed by a spouse, some who
have been divorced by the unfaithful spouse, and are
being faithful to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ by
remaining alone praying and waiting with great
long-suffering for the full repentance and return of
their departed beloved spouse.
What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put
asunder.
(Matt. 19:6)
CONTENTS
Chapters
1. WHO HATH GOD JOINED TOGETHER ?
9
2. FROM WHENCE COMETH POLYGAMY AND
DIVORCE?
43
3. DO CUSTOMS MATTER?
79
4. WHY DOES MOSES PERMIT POLYGAMY AND
DIVORCE?
111
5. WAS GOD A DIVORCE‘ ?
145
6. WHAT IS JESUS’ DOCTRINE OF MARRIAGE,
DIVORCE, AND REMARRIAGE?
187
Abbreviations:
NSRB - New Scofield Reference Bible
ANET - Ancient Near East Texts
CU - Code of Ur Nammu
CE - Code of Eshnunna
CL - Code of Lipit-Ishtar
AJA - American Journal of Archaeology
CH - Code of Hammurabi
KDOTC - Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentary
ISBE - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
JJS 17 - Journal of Jewish Studies
NT - New Testament
OT - Old Testament
LXX - Septuagint
KJV - King James Version
INTRODUCTION
God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. As men are
at peace with their understanding of God’s Law of Gravity, so they
should be at peace with God’s Doctrine of Marriage. Divorce must
be subject to the doctrine of marriage; it will be seen that marriage
supersedes the idea of divorce and in their struggle marriage
obliterates her foe: divorce.
The King James Version of the Bible is the source of this
dissertation. The hermeneutics of the author will be of the literalhistorical-cultural school. One important law of interpretation which
will not be violated is the law of "common sense". I join with
Edward W. Goodrich (Professor of Greek and Bible Multnomah
School of Bible): "If there ever was a place for common sense, it can
be found in the rules for interpreting the Bible." The Bible's
autograph languages may be referenced from time to time, and will
be given their honor.
Sola Gratia, salvation by Grace alone, is the truth that is
being contaminated by those who misinterpret the marriage doctrine.
(You might consider that statement rather out of place, but please
read on for it is the central theme of this dissertation.) If you do not
teach salvation by grace alone, you inevitable teach salvation by
works. The doctrine of works is always condemned by the God of
Salvation, “but though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other
gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him
be accursed, anathema.” We are assured that God's love for man is
long-suffering; He is not willing that any should perish, but that all
should come to repentance; therefore any teacher who promises man
salvation without repentance must be accursed. And since God's love
calls upon all men everywhere to repent, it must be understood that
God's doctrine of repentance, and God's doctrine of marriage apply to
all men, all religions, all societies, all political institutions, and all
nationalities. The first application of God’s matchless grace is to lead
a sinner to repentance: “Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness
[Grace, my comment] and forebearance and long-suffering, not
knowing that the goodness [Grace, my comment] of God leadeth thee
to repentance?” (Rom. 2:4). Repentance for one’s sin, and faith in
the shed blood of Christ will cleanse the sin of any man; therefore
there is hope that every marriage can be saved from the complexities
of marital sin, and His blood is the only salvation for marital sin—
providing repentance and departure of the marital sin has been
exercised.
In matters of controversy, the student will inevitability face a
crossroad. His progress will require a step of faith. That crossroad
will clearly be faced by each student of the marriage-divorce
controversy, and I believe that the inevitable intersection is the
"exception clause." This entire dissertation surrounds this one clause.
My prayer is that the reader will have the courage to study the entire
text, and then consider the true meaning of the exception clause. As
you will see the fate of marriage and perhaps the fate of mankind may
depend on your interpretation of those five words: "except it be for
fornication".
About The Author
John D. Keller is an independent fundamental Baptist; saved
in 1960 and married Janet in 1962. Graduated in 1969 from
Philadelphia College of the Bible and pastored two churches in
Maine; presently at Calvary Baptist Church, Madawaska, Maine since
1980. Our 44 years of marriage have brought us five children and ten
grandchildren.
[email protected]
CHAPTER ONE
Who Hath God Joined Together ?
Has God joined together all marriages? Has God joined
together the unsaved? Has God joined together the unbeliever with
the believer? Has God joined together the divorced and remarried?
Has God joined together the innocent partner in a new marriage? Has
God joined together the guilty partner in a new marriage? Has God
joined together partners of the same sex? Just who has God joined
together?
Regarding the last question: same sex unions, be assured that
God has nothing to do with such sin and debauchery. He has
declared such an act, same sex union, as a capital crime equal to if not
the same as bestiality; the word marriage cannot refer to
homosexuality, as it cannot refer to bestiality. As a man or a woman
cannot marry their, horse, dog, dolphin,1 or any other beast, so they
cannot marry partners of the same sex. In God’s eyes homosexuality
is a godless sinful act that is fit for the punishment of a capital crime
in the nation of God that adhered to the death penalty:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a
woman, both of them have committed an
abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them.
Lev. 20:10
Thus the Word of God has confirmed that the act of homosexuality is
a capital crime. The only salvation for such a crime is repentance
with the total cessation of the sin and faith in the forgiveness through
10 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
the blood of Christ, or the death penalty—the death penalty will await
God’s final judgment day; then death may mean eternal death in the
fires of hell. The Bible equally condemns lesbianism (Rom. 1:26).
Thus if a woman lie with womankind, both of them have committed
an abomination: they shall surely be put to death.—I once read that
the definition of lesbianism is atheism.—The same death penalty was
deemed proper for bestiality:
And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put
to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman
approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou
shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely
be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
Lev. 20:15,16
The Remaining Questions
The remaining initial questions will be answered throughout
this dissertation, and their answers will provide the solution to the
entire marriage-divorce-remarriage confusion. The dilemma is that
men refuse to permit God to rule marriage. Man has the idea that
man is the sovereign judge and ruler of marriage. But we shall see
that man is not the king of his own castle; he has no sovereign right
over his wife or family. It must be mentioned that the woman also
has no claim to sovereignty; she is also subject to the Creator of the
Single Pair. Marriage is literally the creative act of God, and man
cannot alter that act: an act where God created one man and one
woman and joined them together in a marriage. At this point in
creation, marriage was completely defined.
Two thousand years ago, when the Pharisees came baiting
Jesus with the inquiry, "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for
every cause?" the marriage-divorce-remarriage question was in the
eyes of that generation as murky and muddled as it is to the children
of the twenty-first century. Their question smacked of male
sovereignty, although it was intended to test Jesus' understanding of
the Law of Moses; but more than that, it actually raised the vital
subject: marriage. Divorce is a sub-article in the doctrine of
marriage, and Jesus clearly identified that fact. At the heart of Jesus'
answer were those profound words, “What, therefore, God hath
Who Hath God Joined Together?
11
joined together, let not man put asunder.” The only question man can
propose from this immortal statement is, Who hath God joined
together? To answer this question we will follow the Preacher Jesus’
guiding hand. He began his answer to the Pharisees question by
sounding the original Genesis marriage text.
Genesis 1:26, 27
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after
our likeness: and let them have dominion over the
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God
created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
Gen. 1:26,27
"Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning,
made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man
leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain
shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one
flesh." By these words Jesus drove His hearers and now you, the
reader, to the actual creation of man. Marriage is to be defined in the
context of first two chapters of Genesis. Jesus does not proceed
beyond the Genesis text to define marriage. Therefore we can
conclude that the definition of marriage can be defined within that
textual limit.
Jesus immediately introduces the person of the Creator God
as the engineer of marriage. He links marriage with the actual
creation of man, stating that the act of creating man male and female
is the basis of marriage. Some interesting comments surround this
text, with one author, Ziegler, stating that the male did not possess
complete sexual distinction without the creation of the female. Adam
was a male in simple potentiality, out of which state he passed, the
moment the woman stood by his side.2 Much has been said regarding
the concluding statement of the Creator, "And God saw every thing
that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." It should be
pointed out that before He said it was very good at one point He
stated that something was not good in the primary creation of man.
12 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone,”
man was not malformed, he was just not completely formed being
one. Ziegler's thoughts coincide with Laney's comment that the two
Hebrew terms male and female literally mean the piercer and the
pierced.3 Would the male plug of an electrical extension cord have a
definition without the female receptor. Now if a male electrical
connector cannot be defined without its antithesis, can man be
defined without a woman? Some have suggested that man was
created androgynous (both male and female) but Kiel and Delitzsch
are correct and overthrow this theory by stating that God referred to
man with the pronoun them,4 "male and female created he them."
The revelation which we must see here is not that God created man
androgynous, but that he created man married. The purpose of
removing a rib from Adam in the creation of the woman was not to
form a biologically compatible creature, for that could have been
accomplished with more dust; the purpose was to create kinship.5
Isaksson, the author of this idea, concentrated on Genesis
chapter two. However, if we examine (Gen. 1:26) with his concept
we will discover the meaning of the text. The mystery of the
Godhead is suddenly revealed in this marvelous conversation: "Let us
make man in our image." These words have delighted the spiritual
mind since their inscription, but most commentators agree that we
have never savored their full flavor. However if we concentrate on
the kinship concept and meditate on the Triune God for a moment a
greater light shines through.
Man was created a single pair, apparently in contrast to the
animals. Kiel and Delitszch translate Genesis 1:20, "God said; Let
the waters swarm with swarms, with living beings, and let birds fly
above the earth in the face of the firmament." Their comment, "The
animals were created, not only in a rich variety of genera and species,
but in large numbers, 6 reflects the opinion that there were many
pairs of animals. That is in remarkable contrast to man, the Single
Pair. Before the Fall the animals only benefit would be in the rapid
advance of their numbers, but afterwards their advantage was in
marked contrast to the disadvantage of man.
Since man and beast were by creation herbivores (Gen.
1:29,30), we can confirm that there was no competition between them
since neither was the hunted; a remarkable contradiction to Darwin.
However after the Fall, man was immediately faced with the dangers
Who Hath God Joined Together?
13
of death from: fellow men, beasts, insects, storms, disease, even the
possibility of an accident. The odds favored man's extinction. The
initial survival of the many paired animals, on the other hand, was a
sure thing. Man, the Single Pair, was in a peculiar strait. Man lived
in fear of extinction until he could produce a sufficient population to
ensure his immediate survival. Man's only prospect for existence was
bundled in a single relation with the only other man, woman. This
relationship was the most delicate alliance in the history of the human
race. By faith Adam would build a relationship of hope between his
family and his God. It must be remembered that Adam walked away
from the tree with God's condemning words ringing in his head, "in
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The Apostle
tells us in Hebrews (2:15) that Adam lived out his days in the fear of
death. He would have to hope where he saw little hope. Could he
survive to procreate mankind? Would he have faith in the God of
Salvation. His fear would have to be conquered. It was imperative
that he find the faith which would permit him to cultivate his
marriage with love, peace, and promise. He would have to lead his
lady in a life of hope and faith. Conjugal love depends on security
and hope; thus seeking out the promise that the seed of the woman
would bruise the head of the serpent; Adam would have to learn to
pray. We do know that he and his wife prayed earnestly, for Eve's
testimony declares where she believed her first born came from, "I
have gotten a man from the Lord"; obviously an answer to prayer.
The creation-marriage, and the birth of Cain bring a bright
new meaning to the truth of man's creation as being in the image and
likeness of God. The Biblicist believes that God's image and likeness
is a united diversity, a tri-unity, a trinity—Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. Many commentators have attempted to define this quality in
man; some calling it a trichotomy, (body, soul, and spirit), others
attribute it to personality (intellect, emotions, and will). The failure
of the traditional interpretation is that it has failed to see the woman
in the text. By placing the woman properly in the context a
wonderful truth bursts into bloom. God's image was an image of
kinship. The three persons of the Godhead were equally related and
were one. Jesus clearly revealed this:
That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in me,
14 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that
the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And
the glory which thou gavest me I have given them,
that they may be one, even as we are one.
(Jn. 17:21, 22).
When God removed a rib from Adam he did more than just create
another man, he created a man with the same genes, blood type, DNA
and physical characteristics. He created kinfolk. God's existence is
an eternal kinship. God's image and likeness would be an earthly
kinship; man's existence would be dependent on kinship. With the
birth of Cain man reached the ultimate kinship, family. Man was
created family. Trinity and Family are divine synonyms. God is a
family (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Man is a family (father, son,
and mother).
Man and Woman - The Definition Excludes:
I am quite sorry to include this paragraph in this dissertation,
however considering the decline of human civilization that we are
witnessing in our so called modern age, I have no other choice but to
do so. The definition of man and woman excludes any person who
chooses to alter their natural born gender in attempt to become the
opposite sex: medically, psychologically, or by any other conceivable
method. Remember the word alter means to make different without
changing into something else; a man will always be a man and a
woman will always be a woman—they say you can tell them by their
hands.
Genesis 2: 23, 24
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Gen. 2:23,24
The details of the first wedding were planned in heaven, and Gen.
Who Hath God Joined Together?
15
2:23,24 reveals that all went exactly as planned. God is love (1 Jn.
4:8b), and with this adhesive God bound the first couple, the single
pair. Jesus knew this binding love:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made
perfect in one; and that the world may know that
thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast
loved me.
Jn. 17:23
Adam was taught love. First he was introduced to the agony of
aloneness; loneliness. He was permitted to explore the satisfaction of
nature. He is obviously befriended by the animal kingdom to whom
he affectionately awarded to each creature a name. His home was a
marvelous garden. The beauty of flora and fauna, the majesty of
nature, the friendship of every creature, and the companionship of the
triune God did not meet man’s most inner need. Even God concluded
that it was not good for man to be alone. The loneliness of man was
broken during the silence of his deep sleep. This is further evidence
that man is not saved by works, but by faith. Man’s heartfelt
emotions cried for fulfillment even in his sleep. Carl Laney hears a
song from Adam as he expresses his delight with the gift of the
woman; with sleepy eyes Adam beheld the most beautiful creature of
God's creation, and with ecstasy in his voice he declares literally:
This one at last
Bone - my bones!
Flesh - my flesh!
This one shall be called woman
Because out of man this one was taken. 7
The dawn of human love was born in marriage, a marked contrast to
the opinion of modern men who have been deceived to believe that
marriage is the end of love. Marriage owns love, marriage is the
instructor of love. Marriage was God's love gift to the lonely man.
Marriage made God's creation very good. Man was created married.
Man was created in love. It is no wonder that since the garden love
scene all creation has been filled with reports of the same; it seems as
though the famous English lover was in the Garden:
16 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
What lady is that which doth enrich the hand of yonder knight?
O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
Like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear;
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!
So shows a snowy dove romping with crows
As yonder lady o'er her fellows shows.
The measure done, I'll watch her place of stand,
And, touching hers, make blessed my rude hand.
Did my heart love till now? forswear it, sight!
For I ne'er saw true beauty till this night. 8
"I ne'er saw true beauty till this night", was the cry of the
romantic. The soul of Romeo saw the torches burn bright because of
the lady. She stood out as a dove among crows (this would have been
literally true in the case of Eve). Adam could have easily said,
amen! to William Shakespeare. The spectacular beauty of creation,
especially seen in the symmetry and color of the birds, insects, fish,
flowers, and sunsets ensures the knowledge that Adam was a creature
of excellent handsomeness. His song raises the woman to his equal.
Her silence speaks of a breath taking experience as she was
enraptured with her lover; Adam was irresistible. Her thoughts were
expressed by the Shulamite:
Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth.
Song of Sol. 1:2
Eve's passiveness speaks submission and permission. The male
announces his intentions with forwardness, the lady submits and
signals permission to her lover. Kiss is plural; it requires two players.
One alone cannot kiss. The act can only be accomplished with two
sets of lips. Each person’s lips must desire the others. Kiss is
irresistible. Each person is drawn by an energy of love which each
cannot resist. Kiss is promise. Each person promises admiration,
trust, faith, and sacrifice in the kiss. The drawing power of the kiss
has been quaintly explained by our English lover:
Love goes toward love as school-boys from their books
But love from love, toward school with heavy looks. 9
Who Hath God Joined Together?
17
The Loving God created man in love. Man was created a plurality of
being. He was created married. He was created kinfolk. He was
created family. He was created with the cement of love. He was
bound with the lady with this love cement. The twain “was” one.
Man was created a Single Pair. Where the animal’s dependence was
upon their numbers, man's survival was dependent on his love. His
love was victorious. The Single Pair could have joined with
Solomon:
I raised thee up under the apple tree. There thy
mother brought thee forth who bore thee. Set me as
seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm; for
love is strong as death.
Song of Sol. 8:5,6
Leave His Father and Mother
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they
shall be one flesh.
Gen. 2:24
Although these words initially appear to be those of Adam,
Laney points out that Matthew clearly explains that they are the
words of God: “Have ye not read that he who made them at the
beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall
a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and
they twain shall be one flesh.” 10 The reason they shall leave mother
and father is bound in the fact that they are male and female. G. von
Rad suggests that the drive behind Edenic love was bound in the
physical nature of the rib:
Whence comes this love 'strong as death' (Song 8:6),
and stronger than the tie to one's parents, whence
this inner clinging to each other, this drive towards
each other which does not rest until it again becomes
one flesh in the child?
It comes from the fact that God took woman from
man, that they actually were originally one flesh.
18 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
Therefore they must come together again and thus
by destiny belong to each other. The recognition of
this narrative as etiological is theologically
important. Its point of departure, the thing to be
explained, is for the narrator something in existence,
and not something 'paradisal' and thus lost! 11
The creation of the woman removed a physical part of man, the loss
of which compels man to be rejoined with his missing being. While
visiting a nursing home, the author often witnessed to a elderly
gentleman who in his youth, lost a leg in an industrial accident. The
man was usually sad and melancholy since the early death of his dear
wife and only daughter. He was usually unresponsive to the Gospel,
however when it was suggested that his missing leg would be
returned to him in the resurrection, he was startled. He sat up at
attention as if he was preparing to take up arms and march into battle.
He yearned for his limb as he yearned for his wife, and daughter.
Adam yearned for his missing rib from the moment the heavenly
anesthetic wore off. Adam's missing rib caused his heart to explode
with affection, as his eyes beheld his lovely lady. His song begs her
love.
The Single Pair were created on the sixth day. God created
them male and female. God created them married. Creation married
Adam. Marriage is man. Marriage is the natural state of man. The
natural must be considered. The English word is derived from the
Latin nasci > natur > natura, to be born. As natural as it is to be
born, so is marriage. Chaucer said, “The day natural, bat is to seyn 24
houris,” (as 24 hours is natural to the day).12 As the hours of a day
cannot change, marriage cannot change. Marriage was born on the
sixth day of creation and the truth of marriage is the same today. The
New Testament word for natural literally means the face of ones
birth, (the idea is that the natural is present from birth). It is no
wonder that God cursed the women and the men who changed their
natural use:
For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the
natural use unto that which is against nature: And
likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the
Who Hath God Joined Together?
19
women, burned in their lust one to another; men
with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompense of their
error which was meet.
Rom. 1:26,27
The natural is honorable, the unnatural disgraceful. The AIDS
epidemic is a fitting recompense for unnatural lust.
The familial relationship satisfies each member’s need for
security and fellowship, but it is prohibitive for the family to satisfy
mans sexual needs. Incest, consanguineous marriage, is forbidden.
Should kinfolk, by some unusual circumstance, find themselves in an
incestuous relationship, that relationship must be put asunder. Incest
is the most unnatural of all sexual acts. Other unnatural acts take
place outside of marriage, but incestuous marriage defiles marriage as
no other act can. The unnatural lust of women with women, and men
with men is cursed with the judgment of hell fire and earthly AIDS,
but the judgment of incest is immediate, it must be put asunder.
Marriage is a sexual union outside the family of kin.
This union is a totally different nature from that of
parents and children; hence marriage between
parents and children is entirely opposed to the
ordinance of God.13
The tragedy of human history is that it seems to follow a Murphy's
Law: If man can do anything wrong, he will. Shortly after the Lord
God rescued Lot from the sodomites and the destruction of Sodom,
Lot gets drunk and commits incest with his two daughters. Today the
world continues this record of porn.
Sons depart to military duty or academic studies, daughters
the same, but no living departure should be as acute as the departure
to cleave unto a spouse. The nuclear family is the natural family. All
other unions are unnatural. Families are nuclear or they are not
families—the family includes adopted children. The nuclear family
can only be severed by the departure of the child in marriage; thus
permitting its members to join in a new family. Man never ceases to
be family. Those born through unnatural union like the leopard
cannot change their spots; although they can be adopted into a new
family—salvation and the new birth will make them completely the
20 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
children of God. But the naturally born are seen to be with their
parents till the time of departure, marriage. This speaks of marriages
that last. Broken families do not permit their off-spring to depart
naturally. Natural families help produce sound marriages. Although
the departure of the son and daughter produce some trauma, the
presence of the parents and their approval of the new union
nevertheless speak of something wonderful.
Cleave Unto His Wife
There be three things which are too wonderful for me
Yea, four which I know not
The way of an eagle in the air
The way of a serpent upon a rock
The way of a ship in the midst of the sea
And the way of a man with a maid
Prov. 30: 18-19
Since Eden there would never be another as lonely as Adam,
the single man, and the moment his loneliness was removed creation
was complete. Creation is marriage. Marriage is a living organization
that was ordained by God. Marriage is an ordinance of God.
Marriage is an institution of God, ordained and instituted before the
fall. This ordinance requires man to leave and then to cleave. Many
have commented on the Greek proskollao, to cleave. The idea is to
bind together with glue. As a boy, the author learned the adhesive
strength of resin glue when joining wood projects together. At times,
after the glue had cured, attempts would be made to undo the glued
joints and divide the wood only to realize that the wood would freshly
break rather than permit the glued joint to separate. Contemplate this
while you consider the words of the Lord Jesus, "What God hath
joined (glued) together let not man put asunder."
Jesus the master of language exhausts all possible definitions
of the dimensions of marriage with a singular defining thought. He
expresses that definition mathematically. He claims that when man
was created he was created male and female and that plurality was
singular. And for this reason, the groom and the bride must leave
mother and father, because they must again be one.
Who Hath God Joined Together?
21
Have ye not read that he who made them at the
beginning, made them male and female; and said,
For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother and shall cleave to his wife and they twain
shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more
twain, but one flesh.
Matt. 19: 4-6
Jesus explicitly states that the man and the woman are not two, but
that they are one. One is the smallest indivisible particle. William J.
Hopewell makes this fitting comment:
One is the smallest indivisible unit that there is, so it
is impossible to divide the unit of one flesh once it
has been glued together. Man and woman are two
entities before marriage, but following marriage they
become an indivisible unit of one in marital status.
Thus they cannot be divided.
Hopewell goes on to enforce his comment:
Tertullian (200 A.D.) said, 'Again He [Jesus] said,
They shall be two in one flesh.... not three or four.
But if they marry a second time, or oftener, their
oneness no longer exists; there will not be two in
one flesh, on the contrary, many in one.' 14
The clarion call of marriage throughout eternity is, No more twain but
one. The consequent command that resounds back throughout
eternity is, Quod DEUS conjunxit, homo non-separet, (What,
therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder). To
disobey God is violence. Adultery is violence. Divorce is violence.
Hatred is violence—Man was created in unity however this blessed
unity was broken when he and his woman ate the forbidden fruit;
leaving the vicarious sacrifice of the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ as
man’s only hope for unity and salvation.
Why do men commit vicious acts against man and God?
Violence speaks of disunity. Man is capable of violence by the nature
of his disunity. Jesus is the Prince of Peace because of his perfect
22 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
unity. The foundation of monotheism was founded in the text: "Hear,
O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deut. 6:4). This attribute
of God, unity, is in contrast to the disunity of man, and man is fully
aware of his weakness. Driven by his inability to conquer his
disunity and be like God, man has determined to hate the Unified
God and His Son; man's supreme act of violence. Jesus pointed this
out, "And the light shineth in the darkness and the darkness
comprehended [overcame] it not." Jesus indicated that man’s act of
trying to overcome the light, actually consisted of an open hatred
against Him and God, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated
me before it hated you", and "He that hateth me hateth my Father
also." During one particular confrontation, Jesus asked the mob,
"Why go ye about to kill me?" The Apostle states that all men were,
or are the "enemies of God" (Rom. 5:10). Marriage is a God
ordained unity, therefore any doctrine which propagates the unity of
marriage will be hated by the creature of disunity, man. It is natural
for man to hate, to war, to kill, for man is naturally violent.
Unity
Many factors are uniting to attack the unity of marriage and
the family. Pornography, the literature of prostitutes, is intended to
create in the imagination, the violence and gratification of instant sex.
Science in the latter half of the twentieth century has permitted the
propagation of porn with life-like electronic internet media. The
selfishness of man has feed on the bait of pornography, and has
strengthened itself in the violence of sex. The exploitation of man’s
selfishness is profitable; some say prostitution is the worlds oldest
business. The prostitute, however, cannot be blamed for man's selfish
nature.
Science has come to power in the twentieth century. The
question is, Has science exploited the selfishness of man? Has
science offered man a justification for his selfishness. Science is an
instrument of disunity. Its most famous trophy is the Atomic Bomb.
Its authority is rooted in its disunity. Science is the Paradox, its
greatest equation, E = mc2, has given us Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and
the fear of the destruction of mankind. Its concepts of disunity, and
its glory in the same, seem to have endless consequences. Vincent
Edward Smith, a philosopher-scientist, who survived World War II,
Who Hath God Joined Together?
23
wrote a delightful little book entitled, Footnotes for the Atom, in
which he chides modern man for abandoning philosophy/religion for
the strict science world model.
Modern physics has had no monopoly on the
empiriological method. Liberal economics took it
over and found men to be only atoms, closed off
from one another and mechanically united under the
state solely for the protection of property and the
preserving of public order, [Marxism, my comment].
Sociology, at least when it began, felt that social
and political affairs could be run off with the ease of
experiments in the physicist's laboratory.
Psychology got a later start than other empiriological
studies of human affairs, but it grew very rapidly to
the extremism that man is only a bundle of atomic
reflexes (behaviorism) or an aggregate of atomic
drives (Freudianism).
All of these views, which tend to copy the method of
empiriological physics, are powerless of themselves
to solve the pressing human problems which the
atomism of matter has heightened. They only
atomize men. On the social plane, atomism or
individualism cuts men off from one another.
"Bundle Theories" of man scatter his personality
into disorganized and warring atoms, differing from
matter only in complexity. The atomic bomb is
dangerous because of the atomic man. It is unity
that alone can organize.15
Smith admits that pure science will increase man's power; but warns
that it will kill his love.16 He continues, "It is already quite clear that
physics is atomizing matter and then atomizing the atoms. It aims to
explain all physical structures by smaller ones and then resorts to a
third particle, like the meson in the nucleus, to show how two others
are united. It is analytic even when it wants to synthesize. But where
does the division stop? The answer is nowhere: it just keeps going."17
The killing of man's love is almost prophetic, as we look
24 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
about our land. There is a twofold nature to mistreated love. Jesus
taught that the true lovers of the future would have their love wax
cold because of iniquity, and Paul predicts that the self-lovers would
wax hot. The latter predicted the perilous days ahead, when men
would be selfish (lovers of their own selves), without natural
affection, and beside other things trucebreakers. A.T. Robertson
identifies covenant breakers in Romans 1:31 with trucebreakers in II
Timothy 3:3. Therefore the prediction of II Timothy: "This know,
also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be
lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,
disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection,
trucebreakers (those given to divorce).
The destruction of unity contributes to the progress of
physics, but when applied to the walk of man it has produced a
modern paganism. "Society has been atomized into individual units,
and pagans, seeking nothing but themselves." 18 Smith completes his
admonition with the judgment that Science is a false-messiah. 19
Existentialism is the religion of physics. It is the religion of the
individual atomic man. "Chiefly a Twentieth Century philosophy,
Existentialism centers on the analysis of individual existence and the
plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for
his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or
wrong or good or bad." 20 Selfishness is certainly a false-messiah.
When Judah, the son of Jacob, discovered that Tamar played the
prostitute, and that he was the father of his daughter-in-law's child, he
confessed that Tamar was more righteous than he (Gen. 38:12-26).
Like Tamar, science may be prostituting mankind with its offer of a
philosophy of selfishness.
Selfishness or Sacrifice
A comment from almost a generation ago may be worth
noting: A 1980 (AP) news article headline read, "Population Decline
Expected in Europe". A Dutch population specialist (Dirk J. van de
Haa) reports that a fertility rate of 2.1 per family is necessary to
maintain a constant population. He then states, “The statistics
recorded in Europe indicate that they will realize a population decline
should the present marriage practice continue.” Van de Haa claims
that the prime factor contributing to the present low fertility rate is
Who Hath God Joined Together?
25
individualism.
Marriage and family place heavy demands on
individuals, especially women, and tends to limit the
freedom of both partners, he observed.
For a couple, having children imposes limits
on opportunities and activities, in addition to the
direct costs, van de Haa said, At the same time, he
said, children's utility has declined. They are no
longer either expected or legally required to support
their parents in old age or help with family finances,
he said. The emotional satisfaction of parenthood
can be achieved most economically by having one or
perhaps two children.
Many sociologists consider the movement
toward greater self-fulfillment, available at a time
when fertility is relatively easily controlled, a major
factor. Cohabitation is increasingly accepted as
normal, and as many half of the men and women in
Northern Europe may never marry, he suggested.21
Individualism of marriage partners is a form of marriage hatred.
Cohabitation without marriage is violence. The scientific generation
is viewing the intricate relationships of life through the prism of the
empiriological method. William Kirk Kilpatrick makes this
observation:
The words mother and father remind us of what a
family ought to be and that without one we are
incomplete. But this idea isn't a fashionable idea.
Autonomous individuals have a higher priority than
families in the social science world. 22
The social science world is one of unbridled selfishness. Eric Fromm
has aptly entitled his volume, Man for Himself, and then places this
crowning statement on the subject:
Modern science holds the doctrine that the most
powerful and legitimate drive in man is selfishness.
26 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
It is no wonder that the epigraph to this volume reads;
Be ye lamps unto yourselves
Be your own reliance
Hold to the truth within yourselves
And to the only lamp
(Buddha)
It is fitting that Fromm should quote Buddha, since the psychologistscientist has chosen to embrace Eastern Mysticism in its quest to
define individualism. The Eastern Cults have relied on the inner
solitary light as the truth which man must seek as the rock of their
religion. Science required a prostitute to convey its message, and
Eastern Mysticism is that prostitute; included here is the New Age
movement, and the so called Individualistic Society. "It is in the age
of the individual that the revolt against marriage has risen to its
present irresistible tide." Will Durant made this statement in, The
Mansions of Philosophy, written in 1941. In the same year America
entered the Great War, she was in the mist of the new civil war, the
divorce war, the family war.
But Christ taught us to march to the tune of a different
drummer, the drummer: sacrifice. "This is my commandment that ye
love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than
this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if
ye do whatever I command you" (Jn. 15:12-14). Sacrifice is at the
heart of the Christian philosophy. Sacrifice is diametrically opposed
to the individualism of empiriological physics. The Apostle Peter is a
witness to the Christian doctrine of sacrifice:
For even hereunto were ye called, because Christ
also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye
should follow his steps; who did no sin, neither was
guile found in his mouth; who when he was reviled,
reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened
not, but committed himself to him that judgeth
righteously; who his own self bore our sins in his
own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins,
Who Hath God Joined Together?
27
should live unto righteousness; by whose stripes ye
were healed.
1 Peter 2:21-24
Sacrifice is the glue that bonds marriage and the family; selfishness
fractures that bond. When that splitting occurs: it is usually the new
twigs that have sprouted from our sides that suffer the greatest, those
twigs are our children.
The family glue may even reach the supper table. The author
had the pleasure of learning the power of a mother’s sacrifice as a
young lad. In the year 1949 my dad died at thirty-six years of age
leaving my mom, Helen Keller—for that is her name and to me she is
as famous as the historical lady—a mountain to climb; that mountain:
to raise us five children. For several years following we struggled,
and this struggle often reached the supper table. Mom was seen
eating the meanest portions of the meal. When we were fortunate
enough to have a whole chicken in the pot, (that means a chicken
including the yellow feet) mom would be seen reaching for the neck
portion, and the yellow-feet. Several years passed and one day we
saw more food on the table. It was this day that I saw my mom reach
into the pot and retrieve a whole chicken thigh. She proceeded to eat
the thigh with relish. It was at that moment that as a young lad I
began to blurt out, "Mom, I didn't know you liked ...", and I caught
himself and suddenly realized that mom sacrificed those many years
and now she was able to relax and enjoy a single meal. The author
was overcome with emotion and had to hold back the tears. It has
been fifty years since that night, and that moment still brings tears to
my eyes. Had mom chose to satisfy herself all those years, her
children could have perished. "Love seeketh not her own" (I Cor.
13:5).
It is noteworthy that among some so-called uncivilized tribes
as noted by Durant in The Mansions of Philosophy, some mothers
nurse their children for twelve years, and that among the New
Hebrides some mothers kill themselves to take care of their dead
child beyond the grave. But the greatest sacrifice the world will ever
know took place on an old rugged cross called Calvary. We should
love as He loved us. This is where the now disdained clause
originated, till death due us part. Again the Apostle declares,
"Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave
himself for it" (Eph. 5:25). The glue of marriage is sacrifice.
28 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
Choice
W. Fisher-Hunter is wrong regarding the origin of marriage:
The idea that marriage is made in heaven is
false. The truth is, marriage is a divine institution
that pertains only to the earthly existence of
mankind (Matt. 22:30). As constituted in the
beginning it is a contract which one man and one
woman voluntarily enter into; nevertheless God will
hold them responsible in it. 23
He is partially correct by stating that marriages are made on earth,
however marriages are made in heaven and earth. Adam required the
Creator of the universe to intercede and find him a wife. Eve was
made on the earth, but who would deny that the first marriage was not
also made in heaven.
"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is
a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and his church" (Eph.
5:31,32). The mystery is the awesome merging of the heavenly with
the earthly. The romance of this merging event gives birth to our
songs and poems. It has been said that the pure sexual act is 99%
spiritual (heavenly), and 1.0% physical (earthly). This mixture of
heavenly and earthly aroused in Adam the aggressiveness to bond to
the woman, exuberantly surrounding her with his masculinity. Her
attraction is both spiritual and physical. He senses her promise of
companionship as well as being attracted to her physically. Using
physical terms he claims the woman is his bone and flesh. Adam's
words speak of the woman as irresistible. Her silence speaks of
approval. She was created with the power of speech and could have
rejected Adams's advances, but passively and with a sense of delight
the woman joins the man and is not ashamed. She immediately
consents to his proposal, and in that sense (proposal/consent), I agree
that marriages are made on earth.
One major factor that must be established before any
Who Hath God Joined Together?
29
successful solution can be found to the marriage/divorce/remarriage
question that is addressed in the title of this chapter, "Who hath God
joined together?" Mr. Hunter is again incorrect with his assumption:
"Moreover, the idea that God is responsible for having united every
man and woman who are married is also untrue." Hunter admits by
his statement that God is responsible for uniting some marriages. My
question to Mr. Hunter is, "Which marriages has God not united?"
When discussing this issue we must not loose sight of the
element of choice. This element is a divine element which may be the
actual heavenly activity joining the partners in marriage. E. Neufeld
list two defined lines of marriage: (a) intention and, (b) actual
consummation.24 Heth and Wedham list four lines: (a) consent and
intent, (b) ratification of parents, (c) ratification of public witnesses,
and (d) physical consummation. 25 Atkinson following Dunstan list
five marks of marriage: (a) the initiative of love, (b) vow of consent,
(c) obligation of faithfulness, (d) promise of blessing, and (e) the
centrality of sacrifice. 26 Although all these points must be
considered, the definition of marriage can be summed up in three
points: (a) choice, (b) consent, and (c) a public wedding.
Creation dictates the aggressive nature of the male, the
passive yet thoughtful nature of the female. The Shulamite speaks,
"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth." She anxiously awaits
her aggressor with a permissive spirit. Jacob approached the well,
rolled the stone away, and kissed Rachel. Consent must be won. The
man must be gentle, strong, romantic, and practical. When the
prerequisites have been satisfied the stage is set for the drama of love.
The verbs to have and to take have a special place in marriage. They
are terms of common law. The Baptist, when speaking to Herod said,
"It is not lawful for thee to have her." And the Apostle reported, "It is
commonly reported that there is fornication among you, and such
fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one
should have his father's wife." Abraham told his eldest servant, "Thou
shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites,
among whom I dwell: but thou shalt go unto my country, and to my
kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac." Even our children's
nursery rhymes carry the thought of to take: The farmer takes a wife,
the farmer takes a wife, hi ho the dairy-o, the farmer takes a wife.
There is something very final about the idea of taking a wife.
Choice has been propitiated. Decision has been exercised. Contract
30 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
has been negotiated. The wedding has been celebrated. What God
has instigated in marriage is the act of choice/consent. I will address
arrangement marriage, but for the moment we must realize that God
aggressively guards man's right to choose the bride, and the ladies
right of consent. This is the mystery of love. Add this concept to the
finality of man's word and vows especially in the Old Testament, and
one realizes the power of choice/consent. The definition of marriage
begins to take on this general meaning: God has joined together the
(never been married or widowed) man to the (never been married or
widowed) woman of his choice, and the woman to the man of her
consent, when celebrated with a public wedding; and forbid man to
put asunder that which He has joined together.
Consent
The man's choice is contingent upon the acceptance of the
lady. Both are contingent upon social interaction. To leave father
and mother, and to obey the command to honor father and mother,
implies that parental blessing will be sought by the pair. Note that
Heth and Wedham have included parental consent in their definition
of marriage, but as mentioned parental consent is bond up in the pair's
choice/consent. Nevertheless, should the pair make a choice/consent
which does not receive parental blessings the union is still defended
by the Creator who aggressively protects choice/consent. Some may
object to choice/consent claiming that social arrangement marriage
annuls it. It must be conceded that in a culture where the parents
arrange the marriage that the groom agrees to the custom and thereby
knowingly concedes his right of choice. Even where parental
arrangement is the norm, should the groom step out of line, his choice
is still a binding marriage. Samson ordered his parents to take him a
wife of the daughters of the Philistines; and they did so (Jud. 14).
Western culture understands parental blessing as a secondary
concern, whereas eastern culture looks upon it as a primary concern;
but keep in mind that both seek parental blessing. The parent in the
east is laboring to ensure the child's happiness, as is the western
parent, probably with the same energy and interest. Both customs
culminate in the wedding, regardless of eastern or western influence.
The wedding is a peculiar cultural custom. There are as many
different wedding ceremonies as there are different cultures. Custom
Who Hath God Joined Together?
31
precedes law. Customs are created by people. Groups of people
design a common practice which is acceptable by the many and that
practice is refined to an acceptable custom. The custom is protected
and cherished and becomes a tradition. Children in their games act
out particular customs which they will mature to experience in
actuality. The wedding is a common game among the young girls.
Regardless of the culture the custom is honored. Isaac was
overwhelmed with the joy of Rebekah, "And Isaac brought her into
his mother Sarah's tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife;
and he loved her." Here the public wedding consisted of the public
offering of the parental tent.
Wedding
Public testimony is a vital element to any social contract, and
marriage is a social contract. Marriage is a public social act, a
wedding. The strongest customs on earth are religious customs, and
the public wedding is the most universal custom; and I might say the
strongest of all customs at that. This is only fitting since marriages
are made in heaven and on earth. The details of the wedding custom
are not significant; the historical event is significant. The verbal and
written contract is complete in the public testimony. The wedding
event is climaxed in the conjugal act of physical consummation, the
private physical contract. Thus the physical consummation is totally
part of the wedding.
Marriage is a legal act, not based on the state, but based on
the law of creation. Jesus said, "from the beginning it was not so."
He was questioned regarding the meaning of the law of Moses, but
Jesus answers to the meaning of a higher law; the Law of CreationMarriage. More than the Sabbath Day was established in creation;
the common laws of God were created. Blackstone concludes that
common laws are doctrines "not set down in any written statute, but
depending upon immemorial usage for their support." 27 Marriage is
now universally under statute law, but one must confess that since
marriage is the oldest corporate act that it furnishes us with an
immemorial source of common law. Antiquity has produced several
ancient codes, and most, if not all, contain marriage regulations. But
prior to the written codes, marriage was controlled by the common
law of Creation. Christ invoked the creation-marriage code which
32 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
was written in the epistle of the Creation: Adam and Eve—please
note I did not say Adam and Steve. The common law of marriage
was written in the creation and existence of the Single Pair. All that
Christ had to decree regarding the marriage doctrine was imbedded in
the Single Pair. "From the beginning it was not so".
The common corporate act of Eden was the basis of God's
relationship to Israel. "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt
thou serve, and to him shalt thou cleave" (Deut 10:20). "Turn, O
backsliding children, saith the Lord: for I am married unto you" (Jer.
3:14). "Thou shalt make no covenant with them, or with their gods"
(Ex. 23:32). The Israelites understood the terms of covenant because
those terms were marriage terms. This can be seen in the delightful
story of Ruth and her mother-in-law, Naomi. It cannot go unnoticed
that Ruth clave unto Naomi, not merely remaining her companion but
remaining a companion till death due her part; "Where thou diest,
will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more
also, if aught but death part thee and me" (Ruth 1:17). We find Ruth
understanding the covenant terms of marriage with keen accuracy:
cleaving till death do us part. Did this concept generate out of the
Genesis marriage? This author believes so. Is not this the idea Adam
had in mind when he proclaimed bone of my bones and flesh of my
flesh. The simple question is, "When would her bones and flesh
cease to be his?" Her flesh would be his flesh till death. Their
relationship was bound in blood; life is in the blood. Blood is
generated by the bone, therefore we are assured that Adam and Eve
were kinfolk. The Single Pair was family. The only way to cease
from being family is to cease in death. Till death do us part.
Therefore marriage is complete when: (a) the man makes a
choice, (b) the lady consents, and (c) the wedding is complete. For
centuries laws have regulated this act. Even in Eden there was a
condition placed on marriage; that it must be sought outside the
parental relationship; incest was forbidden. This was not the case of
the fornicator of Corinth, who had taken his fathers wife. The
condition was clearly commanded, that the pair would have to leave
father and mother. The Mosaic Law would clearly define the
forbidden degrees of marriage within the limits of family.
Before we leave the definition of the wedding let us consider
a discussion about of the act of physical consummation. Is it possible
that consummation may be delayed to a time beyond the wedding
Who Hath God Joined Together?
33
night? If so, is the wedding complete? Has there been a marriage?
There are many reasons that may cause the consummation to be
delayed, but nevertheless the public wedding is complete, and there
was a marriage. For whatever reason consummation in its normal
definition can be delayed if both parties previously agreed to its
absence. No one would deny the war veteran, or the lame the right to
marry. Where each party is in agreement the consummation could be
defined as the maximum possible physical expression that could be
corporately expressed. Delay on the other hand can be caused by
many human activities: perhaps a war departure, or some other
foreseen or unforeseen departure after the public wedding. Where
fraud or the unknowing inability to offer physical consummation
exists, most states permit annulment. The church has no doctrinal
position in these matters. Could the law be exercised in such
matters? Where fraud is the question, the law should be exercised,
unless repentance exists. Impotence on the other hand could be
overcome by love.
God's full doctrine of marriage existed in the Garden. Moses
did not define marriage; God did. Jesus said that Moses had to
compromise God's will regarding marriage, because man's heart
would not permit the creation doctrine of marriage. It actually
appears that had Moses codified the Creation-Marriage Law he would
have caused some men to kill their wives. The idea of hardness is all
inclusive, indicating that some men were prepared to commit the
violent act of wife-murder if they did not get their way in their
absolute will to expel (divorce) their wives. Even today, the courts
award divorce readily in fear that if they refuse the woman will be
subject to abuse and death. During the decades of the mid-twentieth
century the abuse of women was well documented. Strong laws were
promulgated to defend the women, and consequently today these laws
are still in the books. This in spite of the fact that the table of abuse
has in many cases turned and today women have become the violent
aggressors, recording many criminal cases of abuse against the man;
husband abuse. If this continues the state will most likely reverse the
laws that now support women.
God's will regarding marriage, preceded the State, Israel,
Moses, and the Church. The garden marriage fully expressed God's
will. "The idea that God's will is not to be obeyed is an idea quite
alien to Jewish thinking". 28 In Matthew's divorce logion, Jesus was
34 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
answering two schools of thought. The conservative element granted
divorce for adultery, while the liberal permitted a man to put away his
wife for burning his soup, or even if he found a more beautiful
woman than his wife. It is in this context that Jesus teaches His
doctrine of indissoluble marriage. The foundation of His teaching
was the Garden marriage. Isaksson comments on the relevance of
God's will:
The distinction between the sphere of the law and a
sphere in which God's will is expressed but mankind
is not bound to try to obey it, is a distinction foreign
to the N.T... In other words, to make a distinction
like this is based on conditions derived from a
different period and a different environment than
those of the N.T. 29
The Old Testament saint believed that any revelation of God's will
had the binding force of law. Jesus called the Psalms God’s law in
(Jn. 12:34) when quoting (Ps. 82:6), "Is it not written in your law, I
said, Ye are gods." The Jews answered him likewise, “The people
answered him, “We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth
forever: and how sayest thou, the son of man must be lifted up;” a
reference to (Psalm 102:26, 27) being understood to be the Law of
God. Again in (Jn. 15:25) Jesus said, "But this cometh to pass, that
the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law: They hated me
without a cause", a reference to (Psa. 35:19, and 69:4). Merril F.
Unger in his dictionary defines the law of God as:
A term employed almost 200 times in the Bible and
signifying the revealed will of God with respect to
human conduct.
It includes all the Divine
commands and precepts for regulating man's moral
life without and within.
Dr. H.L. Willmington in his Guide to the Bible lists a total of 613
commandments in the Old Testament which Israel believed consisted
of God's law. The Biblical term law has a broad range of
significance.
Creation-Marriage, therefore, is God's law; a law that was
Who Hath God Joined Together?
35
revealed in the very creation of man. It is a law of creation as is the
law of gravity, or the law of thermodynamics. By nature the Single
Pair's creation-marriage was indissoluble. God's revealed will was
that marriage is indissoluble. Indissoluble marriage is the law of
God. To change that law would require the same force required to
change the law of gravity, or the law of thermodynamics. It would
literally require God to dissolve heaven and earth and create a new
universe with different natural laws. This is the essence of Jesus'
words, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled"
(Matt. 5:18). Thus creation-marriage is with us today 6,000 years
since its inception; listen to these definitions from Black's Law
Dictionary:
Leave: Willful departure with intent to remain away,
and not merely a temporary absence with intention
of returning.
Join: To unite; to come together, to combine or unite
in time, effort, action, to enter into an alliance.
Marriage: As distinguished from the agreement to
marry and from the act of becoming married, the
civil status, condition or relation of one man and one
woman united in law for life, for the discharge to
each other and the community of the duties legally
incumbent on those whose association is founded on
the distinction of sex.
The wedding is interpreted by culture and custom and these dictate
the dreams and fears of the event. Youth of all cultures past, present
and future gather and will gather from society those activities that are
honored as wedding ceremonies. These customs are deeply ingrained
in our social mores. Likewise the creation-marriage wedding must be
embraced by all Bible believing pastors, teachers, evangelists; all of
the members of the Body of Christ. This is one of the most important
soul-winning doctrines neglected by the evangelist of our day.
Heresy will hinder both the soul-winner and the lost he was sent to
win.
36 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
Heresy
Creation-marriage, indissoluble marriage, is an absolute
literal commandment. The majority of modern commentators flatly
reject this idea. Lost souls and most saved alike are repulsed by the
indissoluble union; their chorus: "Let us break their band asunder,
and cast away their cords from us." The scholar’s objections include
a form of semantic confusion. Edward G. Dobson, leads us to believe
that God approved of divorce by actually commanding divorce in the
Ezra text. Taking his lead from Jay E. Adams—although Dobson
does not acknowledge Adams—he goes on to persuade that since "the
Lord God threatened to divorce Israel, divorce is not an act of sin;
because God cannot sin." 30 Adams is bold when he persuades for
divorce claiming that, God is in our understanding a divorced person,
because He divorced Israel. 31 In this dissertation I will prove these
gentlemen wrong. We have not heard the last of the Adams/Dobson
doctrine, it is full of radical ideas which will be discussed in full. The
commandment of creation-marriage is foreign to their dissertations. I
have chosen to persuade for the commandment of permanency; they
for a false commandment of divorce.
The fundamental Bible believer embraces a grammaticalhistorical, literal hermeneutics. We boldly claim the way of truth.
We spurn the allegoricalist and separate ourselves from the
modernist-liberal. Vain philosophy is far from our door. But dear
reader, are you prepared to measure marriage with the literal
grammatical-historical method? To teach the literal interpretation of
Edenic marriage to the Church of Christ is the most difficult task
facing the evangelists and pastors of our day. It is difficult because
the saints refuse to hear God's command. "Oh yes", they say, when
asked if they believe the literal teaching of Genesis. "Yes", the
Edenic marriage is a literal permanent indissoluble marriage. But
when this preacher translates this doctrine into a commandment for
modern man, they say, "No!" And then go on to philosophize the
truth away. Rigid rules or absolute commands have a way of
exposing the narrow minds of the Modernist-Liberal. They
immediately respond to the absolute with intolerance and rebellion.
Who Hath God Joined Together?
37
Immature children have a like reaction, always interpreting limits as
confinement rather than safety. Liberals like children demand
thoughts that permit them limitless activity. When confronted with an
absolute command, they resort to philosophy; thus paving the way to
liberalism which usually includes sinful conduct. Therefore when
confronted with the doctrine of creation-marriage man is faced with a
dilemma. The predicament is obvious. Creation-marriage is sound
doctrine. It is simple. It is unobjectionable. It is literally solid as
concrete. Therefore it leaves all men with one of two alternatives;
man must believe it or he must philosophize it away. The philosophy
used is as old as sin. It simply teaches that creation-marriage is true,
but is only an ideal. This simple philosophical maneuver has
succeeded throughout the history of man. It has succeeded as a most
fierce cruel weapon of Satan, a weapon designed to destroy the
children of men. Let us study the ideal deception of modern
philosophy.
Immanuel Kant—his first name should accord him no
spiritual honor since his only resemblance to our Immanuel ends
there—must be credited with the invention of the ideal scheme.
Perhaps he could qualify as one of the false-Christ’s who would come
in Jesus name? Kant's parent’s were members of the Pietist sect,
devoted to the strict teaching of New Testament principles, "The new
birth must always be preceded by the agonies of repentance and that
only a regenerated theologian could teach theology" 32, is a sample of
their belief. Immanuel attended a strict school where as he said, he
was exposed to the fearful teachings of an everlasting hell as well as
solid Bible courses and was obligated to practice austere piety. Kant
later resented this heavy dose of piety and terror; "fear and
trembling," he said, overcame him when he recalled those days. 33
Note that resentment was the reaction of this lad to the rigor
of a strict disciplined Christian school. It is regrettable that after a
life as a philosopher, Kant at the age of sixty-nine in an attempt to
redeem his religious heritage entered into the field of theology. His
famous essays, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, have
made him famous to the world and infamous to Biblicists. He
preached the innate goodness of man, universal morality, morality
does not need divine revelation (Scripture), Christ was the most
godlike of men (the ideal man), and that it should not be necessary for
a Christian to believe in miracles or in the divinity of Christ. 34
38 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
Reason was his god and savior, and reason gave him those glorified
ideas and ideals. His most notorious convert was the wicked, George
Wilhelm Friedreich Hegel.
Hegel was also born into a family steeped in piety. His godly
parents mortgaged their property to send George to study theology at
Turingen Seminary. After graduating, Hegel disappointed his parents
by refusing to enter the ministry. He later denied the virgin birth,
rejected miracles, pictured Christ as a crucified rebel, and he did not
mention the resurrection. His definition of God: "Pure reason,
incapable of any limitations is Deity itself, 35 certainly identifies him
with Kant. Hegel became a political idealist and invented "Dialectic
Logic". It is surprising that Hegel would have been read by anyone,
considering the remark of Schopenhauer:
The height of absurdity in serving up pure nonsense,
in stringing together senseless and extravagant
masses of words, such as had previously been
known only in madhouses, finally reached in Hegel,
and became the instrument of the most beautiful
mystification that has ever taken place, with a result
which will appear fabulous to posterity, and will
remain as a monument of German stupidity. 36
Nevertheless, after his death, two schools of Hegelian thought
evolved. The Hegelian Right with its contribution, Higher Criticism,
and the Hegelian Left with the political philosophy of the atheist, Carl
Marx.
Hegel concluded that the true essence of Christianity resides
in its great Ideas, not in the historical events that gave birth to them.37
These great ideas, to the mystical idealist, are mere visions of hope,
unattainable but truly honorable goals. Targets higher then anyone
can reach; literally impossible dreams. The meaning of a standard
capable of existing only as a mental concept by virtue of its
unattainable perfection, ideals is the meaning the Liberals need so
they can escape the demands of absolute commands. The philosophy
of Kant and Hegel would not only produce Higher Criticism and
Marxism, but would go on to inspire Ritchl, Schleiermacher,
Troeltsch, Darwin, Fosdick and the spirit of Liberalism. Kenneth
Cauther makes this observation of Liberalism:
Who Hath God Joined Together?
39
Liberalism is a certain attitude toward all of life and
the world as one great process with God at work in it
to give purpose with man at the center in the image
of God. This divine deposit is to be developed to the
highest extent through the rule of love. When it is
widespread we will have a world brotherhood living
up to the highest ideal [emphasis mine] even as
Jesus did.38
Idealism is the father of Liberalism. The Modernist-Liberal Church
has proposed this philosophy since its inception.
Then
Evangelicalism embraced this false teaching; but today some
professed Fundamentalist have embraced this heresy, preaching and
teaching dissoluble-marriage. Ambrozic has clearly stated this
matter:
When Paul gives the Lord's teaching on
indissolubility of marriage, he is not offering advice;
neither is he counseling or exhorting his readers to
strive for a beautiful ideal. For him, Jesus' teaching
is God's will which must be obeyed.39
The ambiguity of the debate is the fact that Jesus' teaching of
indissoluble marriage is almost a universally accepted conviction.
The liberal, moderate, and conservative commentators all agree that
this is the definite doctrine of Christ. Thus in order for the liberal and
moderate to think of a dissoluble union they must reach out to the
drug of idealism to permit their infraction. But when the
Fundamentalist Biblicist employs idealism to support his
compromise, one can only look down with sadness and despair.
While refusing to believe and teach the literal truth of the Garden
Wedding, the brethren have accepted the poison drug of idealism and
commit heresy. God has clearly posted his warning concerning this
danger: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of man, after the rudiments of the world, and
not after Christ." (Col. 2:8).
The leaven of idealism regarding creation-marriage is so
subtle that many of the current authors, both liberal and conservative,
40 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
employ the idea in their writings:
P.E. Steel and C.H. Ryrie, Meant to Last,, (Victor,
Wheaton, Ill. 1983) "He forced them to view the
divine ideal in Genesis 2. (p. 88) "This is, without
question, the ideal that God declared in His Word..
(p. 88)
R.W. DeHaan, Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage
(Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1979)
"There are exceptional situations where steps less
than ideal are taken." (p. 7)
Edward G. Dobson, Fundamentalist Journal,
"God's ideal for the permanency of marriage has not
changed." (Oct. 1985, p.39) "In Luke 16:18 we find
the general teaching of Jesus that presents God's
ideal."; "In Luke 16 and Mark 10, Jesus is giving the
ideal." (Dec. 1985: p. 35) "Jesus encouraged God's
ideal for marriage," (Jan 1986 p. 39)
Guy Duty, Divorce and Remarriage, (Bethany
House, Minn. MN, 1967) "Jesus is reverting to the
original, gave affirmation to the Creator's intent and
purpose of marriage. The divine ideal of the New
Testament law has its basis in the original." (p. 69)
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas
Sem. Press, Dallas TX, 1948) "It was clearly taught
in the New Testament that, because of an advance in
the relationship between God and His saints, there
should be the most careful recognition of this more
exalted ideal of one wife and one husband." (7:234)
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures In the New
Testament (Broadman, Nashville, TN, 1930) "The
present perfect active of ginomai to emphasize the
permanence of the divine ideal. (10:154) Bruce
quoted in Ibid. "How small the Pharisaic disputants
must have felt in presence of such holy teaching,
Who Hath God Joined Together?
41
which soars above the partisan view of
controversialists into the serene region of ideal,
universal, eternal truth." (Ibid. 10:54)
A command is not an ideal. Men who refuse to obey a command will
gladly believe in an ideal. The pulpits of our land are filled with
pastors who employ the heresy of philosophical idealism while
teaching the saints to compromise God's creation-marriage command.
The sermons of these pastors refuse to preach the command, they
employ the following terms: God's intention, God's plan, God's
desire, God's institution, God's principle, God's ordinance, and God's
ultimate desire. Their language betrays their stubborn refusal to teach
God's marriage command. One can understand the rebellion of the
Liberal-Modernist and the Evangelicals, but when the true Biblicist's
participates in this heresy one exclaims, "His coming draweth nigh",
for he said, "Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find
faith on the earth."
Marriage
We are now ready to define marriage. The definition of
which will answer the question, "Who hath God joined together"?
Creation-marriage is the axiom of all marriage. Creation-marriage
was the emotional/physical joining of one man and one woman
(monogamy) to form a new single unit. The two literally became
one. This unity was indissoluble and inseparable. It was literally an
act of creation. On the sixth day, male and female created He them.
Man was created married. Marriage requires the severance of the
familial union and the joining of the marriage union. Man was created
a plurality, a family.
Marriage has been manifested when one (never been
married or widowed) man, and one (never been
married or widowed) woman consent to and
complete a public wedding ceremony.
42 Chapter One
Jesus’ Doctrine
Therefore God has joined together every man and woman
who meets the above definition—the only exemption would be
marriages of Jewish couples during the dispensation of the Law; there
both partners were required to be Jewish. Although God advises
against the believer marrying unbelievers He nevertheless will honor
such Church Age marriages as holy. Having said that, I now will add
that God has not joined together any divorced person to another,
during the lifetime of a divorced partner regardless of the conditions.
NO-REMARRIAGE-THIS-SIDE-OF-DEATH
CHAPTER TWO
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
Will Durant, the historian, wrote that man is a secret and
ravenous polygamist.40 This certainly was not true of Adam when
created. He was very good: “And God saw everything that he had
made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the
morning were the sixth day” (Gen.1:31). Then, when did the change
occur? The answer to that question is at the heart of Bible doctrine.
Soon after the Fall man realized he was deep into sin. His tendencies
were no longer toward innocence but were prone to evil. Adam's
delight with Eve was beyond question. Even if God created a Jane, it
appears that Adam would have paid her no attention. He loved his
bride. The first family appeared idyllic.
Then Adam’s eldest son suddenly betrayed this serenity. It
is alarming that the first human death was the result of fratricide. If
Cain's jealousy could only be satisfied by murder, what would
appease his lust? Rape, or perhaps a new doctrine of marriage:
polygamy! Durant is correct when he portrays man as a ravenous
polygamist; for this is a common lust of natural man. Adam's
disobedience was transmitted to all his children, even to those who
oppress all outward acts of sin. The prophet Jeremiah revealed the
common trait of man: "The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked; who can know it," (Jer. 17:9).God's command is
His absolute will. The nature of Eden spelled God's will to be life.
The murder of Adam's youngest son seriously defied God's absolute
will. God's will was so ingrained in nature that all of nature was
excited to vengeance when the shepherd boy, Abel, was murdered.
Cain would have been instantly consumed for his sin, for our God is a
consuming fire; but God often refrains from immediate judgment.
This is an important factor in the equation of human existence.
Should God at any time elect to judge the wickedness of man He
immediately would destroy every sinner; He certainly would have
destroyed Cain. But this would have reduced the human population
44 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
to two men. God generally permits the sinner to exist; we call this
God's permissive will. He permits sinners to live for a period of time.
In the other Garden, Jesus said, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray
to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve
legions of angels"? (Matt. 26:53). Should God choose judgment
rather than mercy, we would all die a fiery death. But man's
existence is always directly proportional to God's mercy to permit
man to exist. Whether there was one man on the earth or six billion
men.
Consequently God's merciful permission to man is to permit man
to exist; to modern man this means he is given three score and ten
years. We do not die immediately for our sin, we eventually die.
Along with our existence God permits our sin to co-exist; this is
directly related to our existence. Therefore Cain was permitted to
exist after committing a violent murder. But this permission was
complex. The nature of man also understands justice, and his justice
demands vengeance. Cain knew this and fears the hand of man, "It
shall come to pass that anyone that findeth me shall slay me." God
also knew the vengeance of man and forbid man to judge Cain.
God's permissive will is His voluntary act of grace, and His grace
abounds. God mercifully places a mark on Gain, and threatens the
man that would kill Cain with a sevenfold judgement. Here we find a
profound mystery. The mystery is that although God permits the
sinner to live he never permits him to sin. He never approves of his
sin. But the consequence in permitting the sinner to live means that
God must permit the sinners sin to go immediately unpunished. He
might even regulate, or mark the sin so that it does not destroy man.
When God permits man to exist he permits man's sin to exist, and
may regulate that sin so that it does not consume man, as he marked
Cain. Later in the drama of man God would establish capital
punishment and place its authority entirely in the hands of man.
Permit me to explain this with common terms. The history of
man is often studied by the articles he leaves behind as he camps
along the hills of life. Unfortunately these articles are, most likely,
litter and garbage. Man's existence is directly proportional to the
existence of litter. His acts of pleasure and war are even more
hazardous, the former produced AIDS, the latter an A-Bomb.
Pollution and death is caused by man's existence. Before Christ, God
permitted the Cain’s to exist by controlling their sin, he marked it,
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
45
and he set rules about it, seven fold judgements. But Christ marked a
new era. Rather than destroying all sinners and recreating a new
earth, God chose to bruise his Son. He permitted the sins of man to
destroy His Son on a bloody cross, so that man might be born again.
He also ushered in a new era whereby His will would again be
absolute as it was in the Creation. Therefore during the period of
history between the Fall and the Cross, God regulated sin or regulated
pollution. By permitting man to live, he permitted the pollution of
man to exist, however God did regulate and control the pollution.
God initially controlled sin by ordaining that man would be
regulated by his conscience, "And the eyes of them both were
opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig
leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Conscience was
designed to control the sin, sin that God hated. Conscience, the
trophy of man, was the weakest of all controls; it almost led to the
annihilation of mankind. "Who sometime were disobedient, when
once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the
ark was preparing, in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved by
water." Conscience led man into the deadly Flood-Judgment.
God also permitted man to govern man. Human government
had a twofold design, (1) it offered man the right to control his own
sin, and (2) it would prove to man that he could not govern sin out of
his life. Rather than using human government to humble his sin
nature, man used human government to inflame himself, "let us make
us a name." With a tower to heaven he believed he could rule the
universe. Although human government would be ordained through
out history, the judgment which destroyed the Tower of Babel
pronounced the sentence of death on the hope that human government
would provide man eternal salvation. But human government
controlled sin which existed because of the existence of man.
Although this failed nevertheless human government did control and
regulate the sins of men.
Man has proved that his nature is violent. “The earth also
was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen.
6:11). As Jeremiah said, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and
desperately wicked; who can know it" (Jer. 17:9). The point is that
conscience, and human government (human laws), are band-aids on
the cancer of man’s depravity. Man labors to conceal his sin. Under
human government rather than clubbing his brother, man hid his evil
46 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
nature under his tongue, but Jesus saw his heart. "Whosoever shall
say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council; but
whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
Rather than sleeping with Bathsheba, man chose to imagine his way
into her bed, "Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath
committed adultery with her already in his heart." The garments of
man’s sin are filthy rags.
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade
as a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, have
taken us away.
Isa. 64:6
As men invented ways to avoid the outward act of sin he
actually covered his sin with sin. His hard heart would not repent,
rather he worked on his sin. The garments of sin were invisible
garments to God, but man believed in them because other men could
not see the real sin; the inner man. Rather than clubbing his younger
brother the eldest now used those four letter words (Raca, fool, etc.).
Rather than hate is wife he now used a new weapon: divorce. Man's
nature was particularly violent on the domestic front. The ferocity of
man's nature in the home strained God's longsuffering. Jesus explains
God's reasoning, "Moses, because of the hardness of your heart,
suffered (permitted) you to put away your wives, but from the
beginning it was not so." Divorce was not an invention of heaven, it
was one of the manufactured garments of sin; it is of the earth,
nothing more then a feeble covering for the sin of man. As we shall
see its existence predates Moses.
Another garment of sin was polygamy. Rather than commit
adultery, a man divorced his wife, and married his paramour. Rather
than raping the beautiful young maid, man invented polygamy; he
just married her. God permitted man to invent divorce and
polygamy. He permitted them to exist, as he permitted sinful man to
exist. These feeble coverings for sin are actually the sinful acts and
inventions of man. God did not invent divorce or polygamy. Latter
we will discuss why God chose to permit these sinful acts to exist in
the Mosaic Law; but first let us study the ancient laws of man. Laws
that preceded Moses.
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
47
The Antediluvian Society: (Gen. 4-6)
Creation-marriage is the doctrine of God throughout all ages.
Time and circumstance have no influence on its content and
application. After 4000 years of human history, Jesus clearly stated
this fact, "from the beginning it was not so." Idealism, divorce,
polygamy, the inventions of man did not alter Jesus' doctrine of
creation-marriage. Theologians refer to progressive revelation as
doctrine that is revealed throughout Scripture, but the revelation of
marriage was totally revealed in the Garden of Eden. As the human
population increased, God did increase the government of marriage.
Man's actions that surround marriage require us to study all of history
and all of the Bible; remember customs play a part in history.
The first marriage question that arises out of Scripture is:
Who did Cain marry? The only command that Cain was obligated to
follow regarding marriage was that he leave his mother and father—
remember Cain was expelled from his family when God said, “A
fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth—as we have
previously declared, Cain’s marriage to Eve was forbidden. At this
period of history his marriage to a daughter of Adam was not
forbidden. Incest was limited to a marriage or sexual act between
mother and son and father and daughter. "And the days of Adam
after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat
sons and daughters" (Gen. 5:5).
Surprisingly the next major objection to creation-marriage is
the question, What of Bible polygamy? Creation-marriage was
monogamy. In the seventh generation of Adam the Bible records the
first act of polygamy. The first recorded sin was the eating of the
forbidden fruit, the second was the murder of Abel, and the third was
the polygamy of Lamech. Man does appear to be a ravenous
polygamist. "And Lamech took unto him two wives", (Gen. 4:19). At
first glance this appears to be a simple matter of a man taking two
women in marriage; but a closer look will reveal several important
elements. Please note that polygamy is not a simple matter; this was
an entirely new doctrine regarding marriage and as we shall see, it
was the sinful invention of an evil man—need I say more. It is
absolutely void of any blessing or approval from our Holy God.
The statement of Lamech’s polygamy is introduced abruptly,
as to mark Lamech as was the murderer Cain marked. The tip off
48 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
regarding the character of Bible personages is found in their name:
Adam (adam, adamah, ground), Eve (hawah, life giver). Kiel and
Delitzsch point out that Lamech turned marriage into the lust of the
eye, and the lust of the flesh. "The names of the women [Lamech's
women] are indicative of sensual attractions: Adah: the adorned; and
Tillah: shady, tinkling. 41 The adorned reminds us of Jezebel who
while attempting to circumvent the judgement of God by painting her
face, only made it more appetizing to the man-eating dogs that ate it.
Shady was a trait of street prostitutes. It is noteworthy that tinkling is
mentioned by Isaiah when referring to the sensual women of his day,
"Moreover the Lord saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty,
and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and
mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet; Therefore
the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters
of Zion" (Isa. 3:16-17). The uncommon record that a daughter was
born to Zilla is mentioned, Naamah: pleasant, lovely, graceful. KielDelitszch believe her name "reflects the worldly mind of the
Cainites." Perhaps she was the first beauty queen? Does her name
mean graceful in the sense of a belle figure? Most commentators
agree that the evidence suggests that Lamech was a lustful man; and
that lust drove his polygamy.
Henry Morris attributes to Lamech the leadership role of the
antediluvian rebellion against God; stating that he initiated his
rebellion against God with his polygamy. Further suggesting that the
sensuality of this society can be heard in the lyrics of Lamech's song;
a song which he sang in the presence of his wives. Morris notes that
although there were no paramours present, Lamech boasts to killing
two men is actually a warning to all to men. He warns them not to
seduce his women.42 This is a fitting commentary on the moral tone
of this society; and when one reads the record in Genesis chapter six
of the days immediately preceding the Flood it is evident that
Lamech's fears were justified; “That the sons of God saw the
daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all
whom they chose;” (Gen. 6:2) we will fully discuss this text.
Regardless, the first polygamist was a killer. Scripture records his
confession, "Hear my voice ye wives of Lamech, and hearken unto
my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man
to my hurt." Jewish tradition believes that Tubal-Cain while guiding
his nearly blind father (Lamech) to shoot a beast of prey, while on a
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
49
hunt, that Lamech failed to reach, the target, and his shot mortally
wounded his grandfather, Cain. Lamech was so jubilant, and excited
about his deed that he began to clap his hands heavily, and in his
blind condition he failed to regard Tubal-Cain, accidentally striking
him in the head and killing him. His song was his celebration and
self-blessing.43
And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah,
Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto
my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding,
and a young man to my hurt. If Cain shall be
avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and
sevenfold.
Gen. 4:23-24
The survival of the human race was essential to both the
generation of Adam and Noah, and this depended on the hope of a
large human population; the larger the tribe, the larger the nation.
Along with numbers man needed power, and the sons of Lamech
were powerful. The record tells us that they were tent makers,
herdsmen (red meat eaters), inventors of musical instruments, and
metallurgists (metal weapons). This raises a question. Since
numbers of sons was power: Was it possible that Lamech was
cheating on the numbers, by committing bigamy? Polygamy is
nothing more than the sin of bigamy. Realizing that more than one
wife gave him the potential to have many sons, he must have
imagined he discovered the doctrine of marriage that would make
him the savior of the world: polygamy—a Satanic deception. Bible
history never fails to document the lives of men who resist the
knowledge of God.
Lamech reminds one of the Antichrist of the last day, "Who
opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshiped so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is the God" (II Thess. 2:4). The Cainites were an
ungodly sensual race; thus polygamy satisfied their lust and need for
power. It could also satisfy a man's need for at least one son, an heir,
as we shall soon see.
50 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
The Godly Antediluvians
And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son,
and called his name Seth: For God, said she, hath
appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom
Gain slew. And to Seth, to him also there was a son;
and he called his name Enosh: then began men to
call upon the name of the Lord. Gen 4: 25,26
The next major event which affects our thesis is the birth of a
godly seed of Seth and his son Enosh; "who called upon the name of
the Lord." In Paul's letter to the Romans we are assured that
"Whosoever calleth upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Here
again, most commentators, see the Sethites as a spiritual race who
found salvation by faith." Salvation is clearly visible in one of their
race, Enoch. The fact that he walked with God is mentioned twice,
perhaps for the reason that he walked with God for 300 years.—A
just cause for God to honor him by taking him to heaven via a secret
rapture.
But as the world turns, it remains a law of man's depravity
that the good of men is overcome by their evil, and this will continue
until the Lord returns to establish his kingdom—“thy kingdom
come." Man's battle between good and evil often takes the form of
war; and so we have the first recorded world war, a civil war. The
righteous nation of Seth was at war with his brother, the tribe of the
Cainites. The weapons of Cain were, lust, sensuality, polygamy, and
the power associated with eating red meat, metal weapons, violence,
and pride. Seth was equipped with his faith in God, creationmarriage, peace, and love. Jesus was successful in his defense
against the darkness of evil, "it overcame him not." But this is not so
with Seth, although he could have had victory by putting his total
faith in the Seed of the woman, the promised redeemer. Eve believed
this when she announced, "For God hath appointed me another seed
instead of Abel." The protevangelium (Gen. 3:15) was the hope of
man, it was the message which was at the heart of God giving us the
Book. In this marvelous text we are given the hope of man, the seed
of the woman, and at the same time we are told of the enmity of the
woman, the serpent.
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
51
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise
thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heal. Gen. 3:15
The battle of the ages began that day. It would now manifest itself in
the battle between Cain and Seth; this battle would be won by the
seed of the woman. But before the seed of the woman would enter
the scene man was to wait on him in faith. The vehicle which would
deliver this son to the world was marriage, creation-marriage. Early
in this battle, the serpent despised marriage, i.e. creation-marriage.
Thus the Serpent was bent against creation-marriage, the vehicle of
his destruction. His attempt was to corrupt marriage, thus Satan
influenced Lamech to choose two wives. If Satan could succeed in
corrupting marriage, he would have prevented the godly seed, The
Messiah, his destroyer. The corruption was to permit adultery and lust
to be called marriage. Rather than lust after another woman, the
married man could just marry the woman of his lust.
Satan was very successful in his early attempt to corrupt the
vehicle of the promised Messiah. The proverb was fitting before its
time, "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are
never full" (Prov. 27:20). Immediately before the Flood, Satan nearly
succeeded in his effort to corrupt marriage. "And God looked upon
the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his
way upon the earth" (Gen. 6:12).
The Battle: (Gen. 6)
Some have speculated that the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4
were fallen angels, who had sexual relations with the daughters of
men, resulting in the breed of beings referred to as giants.44 I believe
this view can be refuted with what Jesus said, “For in the resurrection
they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of
God in heaven:” a clear reference to the asexual nature of the angels.
However Scofield correctly notes that, "The uniform Hebrew and
Christian interpretation of (Gen. 6:2) marks the breaking down of the
separation between the godly line of Seth, and the godless line of
Cain." This breaking down was a marriage breakdown; an attempt to
corrupt the generation of the godly seed.
The First World War was a marriage war. The Cainites with
52 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
their lust-marriage were attacking the Sethites the possessors of
creation-marriage. The true prize was to preserve the promised seed;
the loss of which would have doomed man to eternal suffering in the
fires of Hell. The Sethites were in possession of the prize. The
Canites were bent on its destruction; their weapon lust. The weapon
of the righteous was the preaching of the Word of God. Noah, a
Sethite, was a preacher of righteousness; Lamech, a Cainite was a
killer and a polygamist. The battle seems to be even until men began
to multiple on the face of the earth. This comment indicates that
there was a rapid population growth. Although it is speculation, but
this population explosion begs the question: Was it that the doctrine
of lust-marriage, polygamy, and the absence of birth control,
contributed to a rapid growth in population. And could it have been
that the concept of beauty, sensual beauty, contributed to a new breed
of fair women. This combination could have produced an imbalance
in favor of the Canites: (1) Plentiful number of daughters, (2) These
daughters were fair in the sense of sexy; (3) Sons which possessed
lustful physical appeal, giants of lust and power.
If the lust-marriage doctrine actually was the basis of the
antediluvian society, the final days of that age would read as follows:
And it came to pass, when Lamech's lust doctrine succeeded, the
Cainites increased in unusual numbers swarming the earth in swarms.
Their daughters held unusual physical appeal in a sensual sense they
were fair. When the Sethites, the sons of God, looked upon the
daughters of the Cainites: the text suggests that they stopped to look
at length. These tinkling, shady, lovely, pleasant, graceful, creatures
enjoyed this attention. Being trained in the ways of sex-appeal, these
daughters of men persuaded the Sethites to say that they were fair.
The sons of God were actually saying that these promiscuous sexy
females were good—the Hebrew word tohu here translated fair is
unanimously translated good in Scripture.
Please permit a short parenthesis here. In the midst of the
Garden, the Lord God planted the tree of knowledge of good, tohu,
and evil. When the Sethites who were godly priestly men called the
sensual women, tohu, they were confusing good and evil. The
prophet Ezekiel found the priests of Israel doing the same thing, "Her
priests have violated my law, and have profaned my holy things: they
have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have
they showed difference between the unclean and the clean" (Ezek.
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
53
22:26). And again Isaiah said, "Woe unto them who call evil good,
and good evil" (Isa. 5:20). God is not the author of confusion, and
therefore the seduction practiced by these beauty queens must be the
basis for the antediluvian confusion.
Immediately after proclaiming that the fair ones were good,
the Sethites were trapped. The lasciviousness of the pleasant females
further intoxicated the sons of God, and finally the sons of God
entered the seduction and "they took them wives of all whom they
choose." To add insult to injury, there is something suspicious about
the phrase, "all whom they chose." Could it be that the sons of God
actually took multiple wives, committing adultery and polygamy? If
so, then the story will continue as follows: Therefore the Sethites, fell
into apostasy inciting the anger of God, "My Spirit shall not always
strive with man." But God's anger did not deter the apostasy, the
Cainites and the Sethites continued in their lust actually creating
tyrants 45 in the land in those days. These tyrants or giants were
mighty gibbor men—men who believed they were messiahs. Isaiah
tells us that the true coming Messiah would be the El Gibbor, "The
Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." These
gibbors were mighty Liberals, who had no limits but reason alone.
Their thoughts and imaginations were only evil continually, "And it
repented the Lord that he made man, and the Lord said, I will destroy
man."
There is a sense of urgency about God's decision. It appears
that the corruption had reached such a height that it was about to
overwhelm every man, woman, and child. But finally at nearly the
last moment God interceded; there were only eight righteous souls
remaining, souls which had not participated in the moral decline of
creation-marriage. These eight souls were separated from their
society by the preaching of their preacher, by a huge arc (a type of
Christ), and now they would be saved from the social corruption as
by water. The women who were saved from the swelling tide of
social corruption were important women indeed. One of these four
women would deliver the seed which would be the Savior of the
world. These eight souls were married couples; creation-marriage
couples. They were the only righteous souls on the earth.
Now this scenario is no more fabulous then the speculation
that the sons of God were fallen angels who had sexual intercourse
with earth’s fair women; and that these women bore giants, E.T's.
54 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
(extra terrestrial creatures), or A.L.F's. (alien life forms). To the
contrary, there are several facts which lend credence to the lustmarriage view. History has duplicated the declension of a nation or
society through moral corruption and marriage corruption. Egypt
grew wicked in domestic violence and became notorious for its
practice of incest.46 The moral decay of the Roman Empire is marked
in history as one of the underlying causes of its fall, and Greece can
boast of its invention of the word Lesbian, not to mention its
contribution to male homosexuality. There is one final statement that
may have some relationship to this matter. Jesus may have alluded to
an antediluvian polygamy.
And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in
the days of the Son of Man. They did eat, they
drank, they married wives, they were given in
marriage, until the day Noah was entered the ark,
and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
Luke 17:26,27
Although the primary thought here is to reveal the serene state of the
society during the days that immediately preceded the judgment of
the Flood. Nevertheless, Jesus mentions that marrying and giving
wives in marriage was as frequent an eating and drinking. The
possibility that that society had an unusual preoccupation with
marriage may be enforced with the verses which immediately follow
this text:
Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did
eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted,
they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of
Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and
destroyed them all.
Luke 17:28,29
Here again Jesus describes the tranquility which prevailed in Sodom
prior to its fiery judgment. The social sins prior to the Flood and the
fiery judgment of Sodom were abnormally bent on violence. The
sexual violence of Sodom remains the by-word of sexual debauchery.
Was the violence which preceded the Flood a sexual debauchery of
polygamy; lust-marriage? The reason Jesus choose to connect the
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
55
Flood with Sodom may have a relationship to the nature of sin that
prevailed prior to each judgment. Some may say that this again is
speculation, but the sins prior to the Flood were of an equal nature to
the sins prior to Sodom, the former was filled with the violence of
polygamy, the latter the violence homosexuality. Both acts infuriated
the Lord God who saw to it that both acts were annihilated. The
interesting point is that both judgments permitted a few righteous
souls to escape. The apparent reason to permit Noah, and Lot and
family to escape, is because they did not participate in the corruption.
Therefore the extent of the violence was just shy of totality—the
mystery of iniquity.
The final element that must be considered is that Jesus stated
that the same tranquility would prevail in the society which precedes
the coming of the Son of Man. This also enlists the state of the
society prior to the Son's return. Do we see massive homosexuality
in our land? Do we see a massive declension in creation-marriage?
The question is not, How many remain monogamous? but the
question is, How many believe in creation-marriage, indissoluble
marriage. As William A. Heth expresses it, "No-remarriage-thisside-of-death." How many true believers believe in this doctrine of
marriage?
The irony of the free-love culture is that it breeds violence.
Note the words of the Sodomites:
And they said, Stand back, Stand back, And they
said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and
he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse
with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore
upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the
door."
Gen. 19:9
The lust-marriagites of Noah's day were comparable: "The earth was
also corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence." The
Apostle Peter, conveys the same message as he also combines the
same two societies:
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of
darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared
56 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
not the old world, but saved Noah, the eight person,
a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood
upon the world of the ungodly; And, turning the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes,
condemned them with an overthrow, making them
an ensample unto those that after should live
ungodly.
II Pet. 2:4-6
Billy Graham captured the thought to which I am laboring with
exceptionable simplicity, "If God does not judge our generation, He
will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah."
If the lust-marriage scenario is correct our generation should
be witnessing a plague upon marriage. The modern Sethites, the
regenerated believers, should be troubled being contaminated with
the pollution of lust-marriage. We should see the sons of God
practicing marriage-divorce-remarriage polygamy as they are being
led by a world of lust and shame. As a matter of fact we should be
witnessing the fall of the pastors as well as the saints in the pew. And
churches teaching doctrines which will accommodate the spirit of
lust-marriage-divorce-lust-remarriage-polygamy, or to be teaching
that very doctrine. Dear reader, you are living in that day. "As it was
in the days of Noah", is a signpost which gives credence to the lustmarriage scenario of Genesis six. Was polygamy the suffocating sin
of the antediluvians? Did marriage-divorce-remarriage-polygamy
flood the earth with corruption? Will this sin be the downfall of the
modern church? Will Durant, a secular writer, made this startling
comment of the world in the year 1941:
Year by year marriage comes later, separation
earlier; and fidelity finds few so simple as to do it
honor. Soon no man will go down the hill of life
with a woman who has climbed it with him, and a
divorceless marriage will be as rare as a maiden
bride. 47
The Basis of Human Law
The postdiluvian period was marked by a new economy.
Man proved he could not atone for his sins by trusting in his
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
57
innocence (Adam), or trusting in his conscience (Lamech), therefore
God changed His economy and permitted man, Noah, to test his
righteousness under a managed political system, human government.
After God blessed the only remaining men on the earth, the eight, He
offered them the power to rule man by man. The antediluvians were
forbidden to regulate or bring men to judgment—Cain was marked,
the avenger cursed—but now Noah was ordained a magistrate
complete with the power of capital punishment.
And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at
the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the
hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will
I require the life of man. Whosoever sheddeth man's
blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the
image of God made he man.
Genesis 9:5,6
Capital punishment is not some invention of the state, it is a
commandment from God. Note that the commandment would
specifically destroy any future brother killers; all future Cains were
to be put to death by man.
This commandment was planted in the mind of the only holy
preacher, Noah, who survived under the dispensation of conscience.
The shock of this awesome responsibility forced man to organize his
mind to prepare for such and event. It compelled man, the new judge,
to judge himself. This new power summoned man to not only
organize his mind, but his entire life and every other man's life as
well.
It caused him to organize society. In order to control this
power, capital punishment, man would promulgate many lesser
punishments for lesser crimes before exercising the death penalty.
By organizing lesser regulations and punishments, man could prepare
men mentally to commit the act of capital punishment. It is one thing
to require capital punishment, and it is an entirely different thing to
find the man qualified to execute another man. Consequently capital
punishment is the father of human government. Note that God
prepared man to contemplate shedding the murderer’s blood by
requiring the capital punishment of any beast which would take the
life of man. Before beast or man was destroyed, it would of course
be necessary to prove guilt, thus the court and seat of judgment were
58 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
born. Regarding the dynamics of capital punishment and the Noahic
law, Luther wrote:
This is therefore the source [capital punishment], out
of which flows all civil rights and international law.
Now if God relinquishes to man the power over life
and death, actually he also grants power over that
which is less important: property, family, wife,
children, slaves, and farms. All these God wishes to
be subject to the powers of certain men in order that
they may punish the guilty. 48
Keil-Delitzsch agree:
This command [capital punishment] then laid the
foundation for all civil government, and formed a
necessary compliment to that unalterable
continuance of the order of nature which had been
promised to the human race for its further
development. If God on account of the innate
sinfulness of man would no more bring an
exterminating judgment upon the earthly creation, it
was necessary that by commands and authorities he
should erect a barrier against the supremacy of evil,
and thus lay the foundation for a well ordered civil
development of humanity, in accordance with the
words of the blessing, which are repeated in (Gen.
9:7), as showing the intention and goal of this new
historical beginning. 49
This is the truth found in America's historical documents:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political
bands which have connected them to another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth the separate
and equal station to which the laws of nature and of
nature's God entitle them ...
(Declaration of Independence)
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
59
When we refer to the term civilization we are making reference to
capital punishment since it is the source of all national and
international law. Walter Berns illustrates this in the introduction to
his volume on capital punishment, For Capital Punishment:
In the dark of a wild night a ship strikes a rock and
sinks. But one of its sailors clings desperately to a
piece of wreckage and is eventually cast up
exhausted on an unknown and deserted beach [Was
this land inhabited by savages?]. In the morning he
struggles to his feet and, rubbing his salt encrusted
eyes, looks around to learn where he is. The only
human evidence he sees is a gallows, "Thank God,"
he exclaims, "civilization". 50
The Ancient Law Codes and the Bible:
As with Adam, God now also commanded Noah and his
sons, to be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth. Violence was to be
controlled by the law of man. Therefore the son’s of Noah
promulgated laws; some of these documents still exist. We refer to
these writings as the ancient law codes. Archaeologists have
unearthed many fine legal documents inscribed in stone, brick,
papyrus, and vellum, of which we will sample and examine,
referencing the legal history of marriage, divorce, polygamy, incest
and other related matters. Leon J. Wood, has stated in his fine book,
A Survey of Israel's History, that the oldest actual written code of
laws is Sumerian. One would expect that these ancient codes would
reflect the man Noah, the preacher of righteousness. But shortly after
his deliverance Noah was found drunk and naked, so his
grandchildren became intoxicated with idolatry and were found
babbling at Babel. Their laws are invariably adjoined to the idol
gods—prior to his call we are told that the father of Abraham was an
idolater: “Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on
the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of
Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other gods.” Let
us now look into these ancient laws that preceded Moses.
60 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
Code of Ur Nammu (c. 2050 B.C.)
"Ur-Nammu was the founding ruler [king] of the Third
Dynasty of Ur, the builder of the best preserved ziggurat in ancient
Mesopotamia, whose reign inaugurated the last great period of
Sumerian literary 51 progress antedating Moses by 600 years. "The
text states that King Ur-Nammu was selected by the god Nanna to
rule over Ur and Sumer as his earthly representative." 52 He banished
malediction, violence, and strife from the land. Dealing with such
crimes as cattle rustling, (oxen-takers, sheep-takers, donkey-takers),
as well as weights and measures. The orphan, widow, and the poor
were protected from injustice. But the most interesting inscriptions to
our study are those regulations relating to marriage. They especially
expose the understanding of marriage as it existed in the mind of the
postdiluvians. Let us discover the state of creation-marriage in the
codes:
CU § 4 If the wife of a man, by employing her
charms, followed after another man and he slept
with her, they [the authorities] shall slay that
woman, but that male shall be set free. 53
Here we see that the Noachian code which instituted capital
punishment for murder had now been expanded to also include the
crime of adultery. Where King Ur Nammu's judgment lashes out at
the woman, Moses latter squares off at the male, and then includes
the female, the weaker sex:
And the man who committeth adultery with another
man's wife, even he who committeth adultery with
his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress
shall surely be put to death.
Lev. 20:10
We can understand why God would condemn adultery as a capital
crime, but what caused the postdiluvians to aggressively promulgate
this law? Is there something inherent in adultery that in itself
generates the death judgment? Why did the postdiluvians prejudice
the female? We will discuss these questions shortly?
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
61
CU § 5 If a man proceeded by force, and deflowered
[lit.: "undeflowered"] a slave-woman of another
man, that man must pay five shekels of silver. 54
The rape of a slave was considered only a minor offense with a mere
monetary penalty. This however is not so strange when we consider
Moses:
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is
a bondmaid (slave-woman), betrothed to an
husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given
her: she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to
death, because she was not free. Lev. 19:20
The male is this case was only required to offer a trespass offering. I
will discuss the Mosaic Law at length later.
CU § 6 If a man divorces his primary wife, he must
pay (her) one mina of silver. 55
The year is 2050 B.C. and it marks the world’s first record of a state
regulated divorce. There is one earlier document, a private legal
transaction (not a promulgated law); it is about 50 years younger.
These documents obviously reveal that the thought of divorce existed
in the mind of man from antiquity. The fact that (CU § 6) addresses
divorce is evidence that the act was considered an act of violence by
Ur Nammu. Authorities claim that the "If" condition, of (CU § 6) is
evidence of casuistically formulated law. This means that the code
deals with exceptional cases, and not with common daily ones.56 The
State of Ur Nammu saw divorce as a form of unusual violence; thus
the law was casuistically formulated. What this author is interested in
is the fact that while the law views divorce as violence it does not
attempt to prohibit it, it merely regulates the act. Was the desire for
divorce so strong that Ur Nammu could only regulate the act. The
law could not say, Thou shalt not commit divorce. It could say, Thou
shalt not commit adultery. And since adultery was a capital crime
man was forced to invent a loophole in the law, and that loophole was
divorce and polygamy. Why did Ur Nammu refer to a man's
"primary wife?" Because Lamech-Marriage, polygamy, existed as a
62 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
common act in Ur Nammu. Now what lies behind this divorcepolygamy passion. Let us look at this from two directions.
The first approach sees man viewing himself as a god, or
king. Every man has a deep inner self-conceit that he is a king. He
may loose this at one time or other, but he has entertained this
concept. The word king in English is obviously derived from the
word kin (kind, family, tribe, race, nation). The patriarch of a family
is a king of his kin. One obsession of the king is ownership. He
controls through ownership. This ownership concept spills over into
his family and the king begins to believe he owns his family. And that
ownership concept permits the king to certain rights, so he believes.
It has been debated whether the basis of Israelite marriage was one of
ownership. Millar Borrows in his exhaustive study, The Basis of
Israelite Marriage, argues against the concept of ownership, marriage
by purchase.57 I agree with Burrows, nevertheless, it does appear that
ownership-marriage did play a part in the mind of the husband-king.
The very law code we are discussing is the law of King Ur Nammu.
It seems when the Lord God gave man the power of capital
punishment, man actually began to think he was a god. Man was
ordered to exercise the act of capital punishment collectively,
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
(Gen. 9:6a). Noah was not a god. But his grandchildren, who turned
to idolatry, invented their righteousness by calling on their idols who
ordained them king-gods: "Nanna selected Ur Nammu to rule over Ur
and Sumer as his earthly representative." And we were told that King
Ur Nammu banished violence from the land. Ur Nammu was a minigod, a king-god. The Pharaohs were believed to be gods.
This invention was easy to create since from the days of
Cain, man believed he had the power over life and death. Vengeance
is an act of God, not man; vengeance belongeth to the Lord, a
prohibition to human vengeance. But ever since the Serpent said,
"For God doth know that in the day ye eat there of, then your eyes
shall be opened, and ye shall be as │God│,58 knowing good and
evil." Man has not ceased to believe in his own righteousness, his
own godliness apart from God. At times He believes he is God.
Sovereign. King. When God permitted Israel a king, He nevertheless
knew that a single man now could exempt himself from the power of
the law, and that man could indeed be sovereign over man. The
concept here is that the state could not execute the king because the
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
63
king was the state.
God can experience sovereignty with justice because of His
holiness. Man's sinfulness does not lend itself to sovereignty; it
inevitably results in the abuse of power. Man’s sovereignty rest in
his possessions. When people are assumed to be possessions of a
man's realm, it usually results in some degree of mishandling and
exploitation. Men continually develop what is commonly referred to
as turf, and the most common turf is in the home. The adage, "A man
is the king of his own castle", may not be true. It may mislead some
to think as if they were sovereign, or owners of their family, giving
them the idea that they dispose or divorce whom they choose. As we
saw in (CU § 6), the violence of divorce was common enough that Ur
Nammu penalized it with a mere mina of silver. Nevertheless he did
penalize the deed as a criminal act. Notice that the act is assumed to
be committed by the man. The ancient codes see divorce as an act of
the man, the woman the victim. The only explanation is sovereignty;
man assumed he was the sovereign king of his own castle. Divorce is
the act of a king banishing his subject, a subject that he owns.
The mention of a primary wife in (CU § 6) speaks of
polygamy. It must be assumed that the fine of one mina of silver was
reduced if the woman was a secondary or lesser wife.
Lamech-marriage, polygamy, revived in the post-diluvian world.
Will it flood the world again? The idea of ownership contributes to
the act of divorce, ownership also contributes to polygamy. Borrows
is correct by defining the basis of Israelite marriage as that of a
covenant relationship; typical of the Creators relationship with Israel.
But sin ruined this idea and that sin was the idea of husbandsovereignty. Although marriage by purchase is not God's will, it
nevertheless played and plays a part in the customs of marriage from
antiquity. Man assumed that a wife was a mere possession, and he
had the right to buy as many as he could afford. If he had enough
money he could afford a harem, and since the king was the most
wealthy individual in the kingdom it was only fitting that he had the
most wives. Harems were the possession of the ancient kings. The
Lord God set the rules for Israel’s king, "Neither shall he multiply
wives to himself, that his heart turn not away", (Deut. 17:17).
Nevertheless we know David had eight wives named, and when he
took up residence in Jerusalem we are told that he took more wives
and concubines. Solomon of course had 700 wives and 300
64 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
concubines. But God commanded the king not to multiply wives.
The concept of ownership spilled over to other members of
the family as well, for even in the Mosaic Law we find legislation
which regulated the sale of a daughter, (Ex. 21:7-11). The father,
obviously poor, could offer the sale of his daughter to be a
maidservant. Keil-Delitszch see concubinage in this text and they
are probably correct. Polygamy, like divorce, both violent acts, were
not eradicated by God, for to eradicate divorce and polygamy would
have required the annihilation of mankind. The ownership of family
was assumed by others as well. The poor widows words to Elisha tell
how the creditors looked upon children, "Thy servant my husband is
dead and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the Lord: and the
creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen",
(I Kings 4:1). The concept of sovereignty, ownership of property,
also supported the ownership of slaves, a common act of man.
Vengeance played a significant role in the motive of a man's
choice to divorce a wife. If a wife shamed herself in the eyes of her
husband, she often found herself under his judgement. Records
indicate that if a wife raised her voice in public to over-rule her
husband, and embarrassed him, then her husband had the social
approval to avenge his humiliation by divorcing his outspoken wife.
It appears that if the law legislated against divorce it would have been
responsible for the death of many women, since man’s anger may
have led him to the violence of wife-murder. Divorce obviously the
lesser of two evils. The Canadian Government reported that forty
percent of the murders in their country are related to violence in
marriage, leading various organizations to open halfway houses for
women to find refuge. The present laws in the United States, which
favor the woman, were laws which were designed to protect women
from domestic violence which was common in America during the
first half of the Twentieth Century. A live mother is better than a
dead one; therefore the judges of the land award divorce. This was
the same dynamic experienced by the ancients:
He, [Jesus], said unto them, Moses, because of the
hardness of your hearts [wife murderers] suffered
you to put away your wives, but from the beginning
it was not so.
Matt. 19:8
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
65
It appears that adultery was a capital crime, and lesser
infractions were subject to the punishment of divorce; the next area of
concern is the realm of the false accusation or suspicious act. The
guilty must be punished, but the innocent must be set free.
CU § 11
If a man accused the wife of a man
of fornication, and the river (ordeal) proved her
innocent, then the man who had accused her must
pay one-third of a mina of silver. 59
In (CU § 4) the case is against the woman who slept with another
man. Here the woman is accused of fornication by a third party. The
ancient women were held to very strict standards of modesty: the act
of showing the under arms or other body extremities was thought
tantamount to adultery. In such cases the woman was subject to the
river ordeal, and if she passed the ordeal she was innocent. In Israel
there was a similar regulation, however here the woman was clearly
accused of adultery; her husband experiencing the spirit of jealousy.
The Hebrew priest would mix dust from the floor of the tabernacle
with water, have the woman drink it. If guilty the water would be a
curse causing her thigh to rot and her belly to swell. If innocent she
would go free and conceive.
In (CU § 12) the code protects the rights of a prospective
son-in-law: If a (prospective) son-in-law entered the house of his
(prospective) father-in-law, but his father-in-law later gave his
daughter to another man, he (the father-in-law) shall return to him
(the rejected son-in-law) two-fold the amount of bridal presents he
had brought. 60 Please note that Ur Nammu, was contemporary with
Abraham. So here we find the justice whereby Jacob was awarded the
increase of Laban's cattle. Remember the Patriarchs preceded Moses
and lived by the rule of these ancient laws as Jehovah God ordained
under Noah.
CU § 22 If a man's slave-woman, comparing herself
to her mistress, speaks insolently to her (or him), her
mouth shall be scoured with a quart of salt. 61
This final comment from Ur Nammu gives us a glimpse into the
responsibilities of Hagar. Although it was Ishmael who mocked,
66 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
nevertheless Sarai demanded their punishment; and rightly so
according to this law.
Code of Eshunna (c. 1925 B.C.) 62
This set of laws written in the Akkadian language have been
attributed to the Elamite King, Bilalama, of the kingdom of
Eshnunna. The Elamites conquered the city of Ur, but continued their
degree of civilization. Again in this code we find an idol-god,
Tishpak, bestowed the kingship to Bilalama. We will examine this
code with its marriage customs and the origin of divorce, and
polygamy.
CE § 25 If a man offers to serve in the house of
(his) father-in-law and his father-in-law takes him in
bondage but (nevertheless) gives his daughter [to
another man], then the father of the girl shall refund
the bride-money which he received twofold. 63
This law obviously resembles (CU § 12); notice here the prospective
son-in-law bonds himself to his father-in-law in labor, in an effort to
purchase the bride; Jacob and Laban.
CE § 26
If a man gives bride-money for
a(nother) man's daughter, but a second man seizes
her forcibly without asking the permission of her
father and her mother and deflowers her, it is a
capital offense and he shall die. 64
Very similar to (Deut. 22:25), this law does make one interesting
comment: "asking the permission of her father and her mother", an
obvious custom from antiquity, or perhaps from the beginning of
creation.
CE § 27 If a man takes a(nother) man's daughter
without asking the permission of her father and her
mother and concludes no formal marriage contract
with her father and her mother, though she may live
in his house for a year, she is not a "housewife". 65
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
67
This ancient code addresses the modern practice of cohabitation,
which here is not recognized as marriage, even though the couple
lived-in for one year. A formal contract was required. In the United
States cohabitation is being recognized, under certain conditions, as
marriage in some states by judges if the couple cohabit for a
relatively short period of time.
CE § 28 On the other hand, if he does conclude a
formal marriage contract with her father and her
mother and then takes her, she is a "housewife".
When she is caught with a(nother) man, she shall
die, she shall not get away alive. 66
This sequence to (CE § 27) indicates that the woman who cohabits
without a formal marriage contract is considered a prostitute,
however a formal contract will qualify her for to be a housewife.
Again here we see adultery considered as a capital crime.
CE § 29 If a man has been [made prisoner] during a
raid or an invasion or (if) he has been carried off
forcibly and stayed in a foreign country for a long
time, (and if) a second man has taken his wife and
she has born (him) a son—should he (i.e. the first
man) return, he shall get his wife back. 67
This particular law protects the rights of a married soldier-prisoner
whose wife, because of his long absence, has remarried. The
regulation makes no mention of a divorce, however the marriage is
considered legitimate providing the soldier-prisoner does not return.
The new marriage was annulled, even though a son was born to the
new husband.
CE § 30 If a man hates his town and his lord and
becomes a fugitive, (and) if a second man takes his
wife—should he (i.e., the first man) return, he shall
have no right to claim his wife. 68
This law permits remarriage to the abandoned wife. It annuls the
68 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
deserter’s marriage and denies him any further claims on his wife.
Some may see the elements of what is referred to as Pauline privilege
here (I Cor. 7:15). We will discuss this latter.
CE § 59 If a man divorces a wife after having made
her bear sons and takes another wife, he shall be
expelled from (his) house and whatever (property)
there is and he will go after him who will accept
him.69
Although this regulation makes no provision for the mother of one
son, the mother of daughters, or the childless woman, it nevertheless
shields this mother from further violence. As we said, casuistically
formulated law, the (if - then) concept, admits to the fact that divorce
was inevitable. The codes attempt to control violence through
regulation, and divorce, a form of violence, is regulated by placing
penalties on the act. It is assumed that men will divorce their wives.
This assumption is based on the nature of man. In other words it is
unimaginable to men to think that all men will live their entire lives
married to the same woman—this is the product of what Jeremiah the
prophet called the deceitful heart of man (Jer. 17:9). The woman is
assumed to be a possession of the king-man. Generally divorce was
an instrument only permitted to the man. The ancient Semitic tribes,
including the Jews, believed that men had the right to repudiate their
wives at will. They practiced verbal or oral divorce merely by
saying, "I divorce you", three times. The king-man can depose of a
wife, and may procure a new one at will. The king-man becomes the
law; he becomes the judge and the jury. He executes the expulsion of
the woman. Even in our modern courts the judge simply permits the
decision of those suing; both spouses having equal rights.
The Code of Lipit-Ishtar CL (c. 1860 B.C.)
King Lipit-Ishtar was anointed by the idol-gods, Anu and
Enlil. He was commissioned to "establish justice in the land", and to
"bring well-being to the Sumerians and Akkadians", and to
"re-establish equitable family relations among his subjects".70 King
Lipit-Ishtar refers to himself as the "humble shepherd of Nippur".
Regarding domestic regulations he writes, "I made the father support
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
69
the children and I made the children [support their] father; I made the
father stand by his children and I made the children stand by their
father; in the father's house". 71 The value of family was of special
concern to the government of Sumer. This writer recalls an incident
when some of the American public objected to remarks of their
vice-president, Daniel Quale, who stated that a single parent mother,
bearing children out of wed-lock, should not receive the honor of a
true family. It appears that Lipit-Ishtar would have agreed with the
American V.P. Although the extant of this code is fragmentary we
have these interesting remains which enlighten our study.
CL § 24 If the second wife whom he had married
bore him children, the dowry which she brought
from her father's house belongs to her children (but)
the children of (his) first wife and the children of
(his) second wife shall divide equally the property of
their father. 72
Note that, as divorce, polygamy is the assumption of this law. The
two actions that we have addressed in the title of this chapter have the
same inventor, man.
CL § 25 If a man married a wife and she bore him
children and those children are living, and a slave
also bore children for her master (but) the father
granted freedom to the slave and her children, the
children of the slave shall not divide the estate with
the children of their (former) master. 73
Here we find regulations addressing slaves, as in the social laws of
Moses, (compare Lev. 19:20, and Deut. 21:10-17). Regardless, it
speaks of the concubinage of slaves. It assumes that the slave-girl, as
a possession of the king-man, was obliged to provide her master
conjugal, and child bearing responsibilities. Where did the king-man
acquire this right? From himself. Man is a self appointed king.
CL § 26 If his first wife died and after her death he
takes his slave as a wife, [the children] of [his first]
70 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
wife [are his heirs]; the children which [the slave]
bore for her master shall be ... . 74
Abram took Hagar while Sarai was alive, for he believed his wife’s
womb was dead. The elements of both Abram's practice and (CL §
26) are essentially the same. The fragment teaches that Ishmael did
not have the rights of the true heir, Isaac.
CL § 27 If a man's wife has not borne him children
but a public harlot has borne him children, he shall
provide grain, oil and clothing for that harlot; the
children which the harlot has borne him shall be his
heirs, and as long as his wife lives the harlot shall
not live in the house with the wife. 75
This law has overtones of the Tamar incident in the life of Judah,
(Gen. 38). Tamar played the harlot, deceiving Judah, and was found
with his child. In Israel the penalty for Tamar, had she actually
played the harlot, would have been to be burned to death. However,
since Judah was her father-in-law, and she was only playing the
harlot so as to receive justice, Judah was obliged to confess, "she hath
been more righteous than I, because I gave her not to Shelah, my
son." Although it is reported that Judah "knew her again no more", it
does appear that along with her pardon Tamar was supported by
Judah for she was given a place the genealogy of Jesus, (Matt. 1:3)
where she appears as a wife of Judah.
CL § 28 If a man has turned his face away from
his first wife ... but she has not gone out of the
[house] his wife which he married as his favorite is a
second wife; he shall continue to support his first
wife. 76
This speaks of a live-in divorce—a form of bigamy—which actually
might be more just than divorce. Martin Luther said, "In regard to
divorce, it is still a subject of debate whether it should be allowed.
For my part, I have such a hatred of divorce that I prefer bigamy to
divorce." 77 Divorce with remarriage, if divorce is prohibited, as this
paper contends, amounts to simple bigamy.
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
71
CL § 29 If a son-in-law has entered the house of his
(prospective) father-in-law and he made his
betrothal and afterwards they made him go out (of
the house) and gave his wife to his companion; they
shall present to him the betrothal gifts he brought
and that wife may not marry his companion. 78
The story of Jacob and Laban surfaces again in this section of the
code as the son-in-law's rights were protected. God, of course,
protected Jacob.
CL § 30 If a young married man married a harlot
(from) the public square and the judges have ordered
him not visit her, but afterwards he neglected his
wife 79
Steele comments on the word neglect, stating that this word possibly
means divorce. So again here in the Code of Lipit Ishtar we see man
with what he believes his natural right in marriage, i.e. his right to
execute divorce, with the authority to remarry, and the right to
commit bigamy or polygamy; his sovereign right.
The Code of Hammurabi CH (c. 1700 B.C.)
This is the most celebrated of the ancient laws of the sons of
Noah prior to Moses. Although scholars and intellectuals have
honored this treatise with their recognition, it is nevertheless the
product of the idol-gods. Many of whom are mentioned in its
prologue and epilogue. Dagan (Dagon) the Semitic grain-god, the
pillars to whose temple Sampson pulled down; and Marduk
(Merodach) whom Jeremiah called down, "The word that the Lord
spoke against Babylon and against the land of the Chaldeans by
Jeremiah, the prophet: Declare among the nations, and publish, and
set up a standard; publish, and conceal not; say, Babylon is taken, Bel
is confounded, Merodach is broken in pieces; her idols are
confounded, her images are broken in pieces", (Jer. 50:1,2). This
same Hammurabi who experiences the defeat at the hand of Jehovah,
was the king-god who gave obeisance to the false idol-gods said:
72 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
The laws of justice, which Hammurabi, the efficient
king set up, and by which he caused the land to take
the right way and have good government.
I, Hammurabi, the perfect king, was not careless (or)
neglectful of the black-headed (people), whom Enlil
(storm-god) presented to me, (and) whose
shepherding Marduk had committed to me;
I sought out peaceful regions for them; I overcame
grievous difficulties; I caused light to rise on them.
The great gods called me, so I become the
beneficent shepherd whose scepter is righteous: By
the order of Shamash (sun-god), the great judge of
heaven and earth, (god of justice). May my justice
prevail in the land; by the word of Marduk, my lord,
may my statutes have no one to rescind them. 80
The Lord God did rescind Hammurabi and his idol-god; Babylon fell
in one hour, as will the future Babylon. Nevertheless we must keep
in mind that the Lord God ordained Noah and his sons to replenish
the earth and to rule it by man, i.e. human government with laws of
the land. Therefore the Code of Hammurabi is an ordained system of
human government as are the laws of Russia, China, Egypt, and
America. Let us examine Hammurabi's regulation of marriage.
CH § 128 If a seignior acquired a wife, but did not
draw up contracts for her, that woman is no wife. 81
The International Bible Encyclopedia states that, "though the Hebrew
wife and mother was treated with more consideration than her sister
on other lands, even in other Semitic countries, her position
nevertheless was one of inferiority and subjection. The marriage
relation from the standpoint of Hebrew legislation was looked upon
very largely as a business affair, a mere question of property. A wife
nevertheless, was, indeed, in most homes in Israel, the husband's
'most valued possession.' Frequently we find this belief regarding the
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
73
basis for Israelite and Semitic marriage." But as we have said, Millar
Borrows believes the basis for the Israelite marriage was the covenant
nature of their relationship with Jehovah. The covenant was
obviously a powerful force with the sons of Noah, as noted here in
(CH ' 128); a marriage contract was required.
CH § 129 If the wife of a seignior has been caught
while lying with another man, they shall bind them
and throw them into the water. If the husband of the
woman wishes to spare his wife, then the king in
turn may spare his subject. 82
Moses commanded the death of both subjects.
CH § 130 If the seignior bound [raped] the
(betrothed) wife of another seignior, who had no
intercourse with a male and was still living in her
father's house, and he has lain in her bosom and they
have caught him, that seignior shall be put to death,
while that woman shall go free. 83
Almost identical to Moses in (Deut. 22:25-27) this law, as the
Mosaic, establishes the importance of catching the person, or as
Moses states, the act of "being found". This will be an important
item to consider when we exposit (John 8)—the woman taken in
adultery.
CH § 131 If a seignior's wife was accused by her
husband, but she was not caught while lying with
another man, she shall make affirmation by god and
return to her house. 84
CH § 130 If a finger was pointed at the wife of a
seignior because of another man, but she has not
been caught while lying with the other man, she
shall throw herself into the river for the sake of her
husband. 85
The ancient laws continually place the woman on the defensive. Of
74 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
course, if she was caught in the act the judgment was swift and final.
However if she was suspected of infidelity, she likewise was subject
to a proving process. As noted by Moses, when a man was caught in
the "spirit of jealousy" the woman was obliged to submit to the bitter
water ordeal, (Numb. 5:11-31). She would be forced to drink the
bitter water and if she was guilty her abdomen would swell and her
thigh would rot. Here we find a similar test, "thrown into the river."
In (CH § 133 - 135) Hammurabi deals with the wife of a
prisoner of war. The wife who had "sufficient to live on" was
required to remain in her home and wait for the return of her husband.
Had she insufficient provisions she was permitted to leave her home
and marry another. In the event her first husband returned home, she
was to return to him leaving any of the second husband’s children
with their father. Should she leave her home where she had sufficient
provision, she was to be "thrown into the river." In (CH § 136) we
find a law identical to (CE § 30) where the husband deserted the
village of his residence, here again he would be denied his wife upon
return.
CH § 137 If a seignior has made up his mind to
divorce a lay priestess, who bore him children, or a
hierodule [female temple slave (concubine)] who
provided him with children, they shall return her
dowry to that woman and also give her half of the
field, orchard and goods in order that she may rear
her children; after she has brought up her children,
from whatever was given to her children they shall
give her a portion corresponding to (that of) an
individual heir in order that the man of her choice
may marry her. 86
The comment, "If a seignior made up his mind", affirms that divorce
rests solely in the heart of man. His act is final. This squarely
contradicts the mandate of Jesus, "Let not man put asunder".
CH § 138 If a seignior wishes to divorce his wife
who did not bear him children, he shall give her
money to the full amount of her marriage-price and
he shall also make good to her the dowry which she
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
75
brought from her father's house and then he may
divorce her. 87
Childlessness was considered a failure of the marriage relationship
and was considered a breach of contract by the ancients. We should
be thankful that Abram loved Sarai even though she failed to
conceive. Had he hated her and put her away, as the codes provided,
the incarnation of the promised Seed would have failed.
CH § 141 If a seignior's wife, who was living in the
house of the seignior, has made up her mind to leave
in order that she may engage in business, thus
neglecting her house (and) humiliating her husband,
they shall prove it against her; and if her husband
has then decided on her divorce, he may divorce her,
with nothing to be given her as her divorcesettlement upon her departure. If her husband has
not decided on her divorce, her husband may marry
another woman, with the former woman living in the
house of her husband like a maidservant. 88
CH § 142 If a woman so hated her husband that she
has declared, "You may not have me," her record
shall be investigated at her city council, and if she
was careful and was not at fault, even though her
husband has been going out and disparaging her
greatly, that woman, without incurring any blame at
all, may take her dowry and go off to her father's
house. 89
This is the first mention in the ancient codes of the woman's right to
initiate a separation—it would become a common practice among the
Gentiles; Jesus addresses the subject, "If a woman shall put away her
husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery", (Mk.
10:12). Jesus condemns the remarried woman as an adulterer. Jesus
simply states that any divorce with remarriage this side of death is
adultery.
In (CH § 143 - 145) Hammurabi addresses various
76 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
aspects of marriage, but in (CH § 154 - 158) deserve
mention:
CH § 154 If a seignior has had intercourse with his
daughter, they shall make that seignior leave the
city.
CH § 155 If a seignior chose a bride for his son and
his son had intercourse with her, but later he himself
has lain in her bosom and they caught him, they
shall bind that seignior and throw him into the water.
CH § 156 If a seignior chose a bride for his son and
his son did not have intercourse with her, but he
himself has lain in her bosom ... [he shall pay a fine,
and let her go to marry a man of her choice].
CH § 157 If a seignior has lain in the bosom of his
mother after (the death of) his father, they shall burn
both of them.
CH § 158 If a seignior after (the death of) his
father, has been caught in the bosom of his foster
mother who was the bearer of children, that seignior
shall be cut off from the parental home. 90
Incest, marriage within the forbidden degrees, is the subject of this
portion of the code. Notice that intercourse between father/daughter,
father/daughter-in-law, son/mother, and son/step-mother are the only
forbidden degrees of consanguinity mentioned in Hammurabi. The
most prohibitive act was the son/mother relationship, resulting in a
fiery death of both partners. It is no wonder that the Apostle should
cry out to the Church at Corinth regarding the man who had married
his stepmother, "Such fornication as is not so much as named among
the Gentiles".
Hammurabi goes on to list twenty other laws that regulate
marriage; most of which regulate the betrothal-gift, bride-price, or the
dowry. The terms are often used synonymously. Most dictionaries
define the dowry as both the gift the wife brings into marriage, and
From Whence Cometh Polygamy and Divorce?
77
the gift that the man gives to the bride.
The mohar, the payment of a sum to the father of the bride,
has created the impression in the mind of most commentators to
assume that ancient marriage was an economic transaction, a matter
of purchase and ownership.91 The International Bible Encyclopedia
is an example of this view: "The marriage relation from the stand
point of Hebrew legislation was looked upon very largely as a
business affair, a mere question of property". As mentioned Borrows
disagrees, and he labors to show that marriage is older than sale, and
that the mohar was actually a compensation-gift. Regardless the
mohar was a binding element of the marriage covenant. The words
of Jehovah to Israel, "And I will betroth thee unto me forever; yea, I
will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in
loving-kindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in
faithfulness: and thou shalt know the Lord", (Hosea 2:19,20). The
NSRB makes this fitting comment, "The grace of God is beautifully
set forth in the verb 'betroth', which signifies to woo a virgin. The
pledge that God made to Israel was forever—we will see the ancients
applying this concept even to the engagement period. Some may
question whether the mohar, or dowry is practiced today in the west,
and most would agree that it is not. Nevertheless, “diamonds are a
girl’s best friend.”
As mentioned in chapter one, man was created married.
Marriage is an act of creation, and that marriage was monogamous.
Creation-marriage is an ordinance of creation as is the horizon of the
earth. As the horizon of the earth was, is, and forever will be, so
creation-marriage was God's will, is God's will, and forever will be
God's will. The question then: "From whence cometh divorce and
polygamy", there is only one answer. Man.
As stated the ancient codes were the result of God's
commission to Noah and his sons to ensure human government.
They were corrupt by the nature of their idolatry, to which all the
codes were dedicated. This idolatry invariably led to immorality.
"Babylon was a sink of iniquity and a scandalous example of
luxurious laxity to all the ancient world. Even Alexander, who was
not above dying of drinking, was shocked by the morals of
Babylon".92 Jehovah describes Babylon in the Book of Revelation as,
"MYSTERY BABYLON, THE GREAT MOTHER OF HARLOTS
78 Chapter Two
Jesus’ Doctrine
AND ABOMINATION OF THE EARTH", (Rev. 17:5).
Every native woman is obliged, once in her
life, to sit in the temple of Venus, and have
intercourse with some stranger.
And many
disdaining to mix with the rest, being proud on
account of their wealth, come in covered carriages,
and take up their station at the temple with a
numerous train of servants attending them. But the
far greater part do thus: many sit down in the temple
of Venus, wearing a crown of cord round their
heads; some are continually coming in, and others
are going out. Passages marked out in a straight line
lead in every direction through the women, along
which strangers pass and make their choice. When a
woman has once seated herself she must not return
home till some stranger has thrown a piece of silver
into her lap, and lain with her outside the temple.
He who throws the silver must say thus: "I beseech
the goddess Mylitta to favor thee": for the Assyrians
call Venus, Mylitta. The silver may be ever so
small, for such silver is accounted sacred. The
woman follows the first man that throws, and refuses
no one. But when she has had intercourse and has
absolved herself from her obligation to the goddess,
she returns home; and after that time, however great
a sum you may give her you will not gain possession
of her. Those that are endowed with beauty and
symmetry of shape are soon set free; but the
deformed are detained a long time, from inability to
satisfy the LAW, for some wait for a space of three
to four years. 93
CHAPTER THREE
Do Customs Matter?
Customs are related to costumes. What is accustomed, the
habitual practice, may well be thought of in terms of the fashion
(dress/costume) of the day; the accepted social behavior. By sheer
habitual practice some customs acquire the force of law or right.94
Therefore the laws reflect the customs and conversely the customs
reflect the laws. There is a latent danger in all of this. When an
evil practice becomes an accepted custom it may become a
mandated law. The virgins of Babylon were required by law to be
spoiled by strangers in the temple of their gods.
After centuries of postdiluvian history, we hear this
comment on the sons and grandsons of Noah, "And Joshua said
unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers
dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the
father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor: and they served other
gods", (Joshua 24:2). Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts; the
whole earth is full of his glory, (Isa. 6:3, Rev. 4:8). Let God be true
and every other god a liar. The other gods were unholy; immoral.
They were the weak imaginations of men. These gods were the
immoral imaginations of men ruling over the hearts of evil men.
Their work was to provide a conscience for sin. Their fruit was
evil. The attractive virgins were deflowered and released first; the
unlovely awaited their ritual fornication, some tarried at the temple
for years. Man legislated codes of laws to accommodate his evil
immoral nature. Hard-heartedness.
Any attempt by man to exist without a reliance upon
Jehovah, his God, will inevitably lead him to defeat. Should he
attempt to form a government of laws without a reliance upon
Jehovah God the Holy One he will rely on himself and
consequently his customs will eventually become law, and his law
will inevitably be a direct reflection of himself; immoral. What God
80 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
said of man is ever so true: “There is none righteous, no, not one.
For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” (Rom.
3:10, 23). The question is: How could unrighteous man formulate
righteous law? All forms of human government have failed to
generate righteous societies; all societies have failed to formulate
righteous laws. Noah and his sons were under a mandate to form a
human government based on the theocracy of Jehovah; but they
formed monarchies, kingdoms built on idolatry. One such early
monarchy was the kingdom of Nimrod. He was the el'gibbor; the
self proclaimed mighty one. Isaiah identified the true El'Gibbor as
the Lord Jesus Christ, "His name shall be called Pele Joez
El'Gibbor Abi As Sar Shalom", (Isa. 9:6). The Authorized Version
refers to Nimrod as, "the mighty hunter before the Lord", (Gen.
10:9), but the ancient proverb translates this as, “Nimrod the
mighty hunter against the Lord [the Antichrist].” 95 The name of
his city kingdom was Babel; that name would eventually reach the
city of the Apocalyptic Judgment.
The Origin of the Races and Customs
It was on the Plain of Shinar where the men of the whole
earth began to assemble. Here while speaking one language man
formed a compact and designed a universal custom. Each man was
to make brick and join them together as a symbol of universal unity
in the construction of a temple reaching to heaven. In their labor
was heard a chant, "Let us make a name, least we be scattered
abroad upon the face of the whole earth", (Gen. 11:4). Henry M.
Morris suggests that the initial motive for this project was to gain a
self accomplished spirituality, but the outcome was a degenerated
astrology. He goes on to explain that Virgo was placed in the
evening sky to declare the hope of the Promised Seed, (Gen. 3:15),
but Nimrod made her the seductive Queen of Heaven.96 Noah's
sons had slipped into mass idolatry. As we all know, this temple
tower became an object of consternation to these worshippers, as
suddenly Jehovah the Triune God, judged the builders by
confounding their minds causing them to babble in divers
languages. Fear and confusion filled the Nimrodites; in madness
and hysteria they scattered themselves upon the face of the whole
earth.
Do Customs Matter?
81
The remarkable nature of this judgment is lodged in the
human tongue. The speech of man is regulated by his physiology.
It is interesting that the only serious theological discussion
regarding the origin of the varied races of men is found here at the
judgment of tongues; Tower of Babel. Keil and Delitszch
comment on Vitringa and Hofmann who believed that the tongue
event of Babel was caused when the omnipotent God changed
man's organs of speech, i.e., and anatomical change.97 Although
they refute Vitringa and Hofmann, nevertheless they address the
thought of anatomical change.
Creation repudiates the concept of an evolution of anatomy.
However the varied anatomies of the human race indicate that some
change occurred to the children of Adam. The eight souls of the
ark were obviously of a single racial extract. A study of
antediluvian history fails to reveal any time where we might find
some event which led mankind into a world of diversity of races
with physical anatomical characteristics, like those we see today.
But if we examine the Babel Judgment in the light of anatomical
judgment the event does lend itself to the thought. It is without
question that the Lord God inflicted a psychological curse on man
in the Babel Judgment, but is it beyond the realm of reason that He
also cursed the physiology of man. The voice of the birds is
governed by their physiology: the caw of the crow is as expected as
the song of the canary. The bark of a dog is as expected as the meow of the cat. The snappy high pitch voice of the Oriental is as
expected as the deep tones of the African. The anatomy of the
creature dictates the voice of the creature. The size of the neck,
nose cavities, lips, and tongue appear to contribute to the sound of
the man. A Chihuahua cannot make the sound of a St. Bernard.
The environment can only affect the cosmetic nature of man, "Look
not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon
me", were the words of the Shulamite. The races are the result of a
curse, as the races curse the earth with their prejudice and hate,
their wars and their death. This writer believes that the races were
created as were the species of birds and the bees. The creation
which is the product of a judgment curse is nevertheless pure
creation. Thus the diversity of size, color, and language of the
human race that we witness today is the result of a judgment, the
Babel Judgment.
82 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
Hath God Joined the Black and White?
Some believe that the black race was born out of the sin of
Ham, seeing the nakedness of his father Noah. His curse determined
that he would be the servant of servants. As stated previously, the
races were created in judgment at the temple of Babel. Therefore
this author rejects this Hamite doctrine. All races are the result of a
curse, consequently all races are cursed, not just the blacks. "The
Phoenicians, along with the Carthaginians and the Egyptians, who all
belong to the family of Canaan, were subjugated by the Japhetic
Persians, Macedonians, and Romans: the remainder of the Hamitic
tribes either shared the same fate, or still sigh, like the Negroes,
beneath the yoke of the most crushing slavery. 98 Here Keil and
Delitzsch assign several nations to the list of Hamitic peoples; they
are not all black. Morris makes the following comment:
Unfortunately, there have been some interpreters
who have applied the Hamitic curse specifically to
the Negro peoples, using it to justify keeping the
black man in economic servitude or even slavery. It
is obvious, however, that the prophecy applies not
only to black Africans but also to all other
descendants of Ham (most of whom are not blacks),
and no more of the Hamitic peoples have
experienced such servitude during their history than
the non-Hamitic peoples. 99
If the races were formed at Babel, then the mixed racial marriage
takes on an altogether different hue. All skin color is the product of a
curse. Color, languages, and race are the product of a universal sin.
It is not the sin of one person, Ham; one tribe, the Hamites; one color,
the blacks. The Babel/Race doctrine includes the entire human
family. It places all mankind on a spectrum of color tones. Extreme
degrees of the spectrum reveal the curse in greater tones than lesser
tones, nevertheless all the races are included in the lines of color. To
permit the mixing of the lesser color tones while prohibiting the
extreme tones to mix would be insincere; hypocrisy. Race distinction
reveals the curse which was aggravated by sin. When a black and
Do Customs Matter?
83
white unite in marriage it personifies the curse. This is socially
embarrassing to those who have melted into the acceptable
background of the spectrum; some of these people have formed an
evil prejudice that is very strong.
Although mixed racial unions are perfectly legitimate, they
nevertheless will be unions that experience social tension, i.e. the
tension of societies own embarrassment which is a reminder of the
sin of all men at Babel. The loving couple will not personally know
the embarrassment; they will however wrestle with the
embarrassment of others. Those contemplating this union should be
warned of the burden of the mixed-racial marriage, for a pastor to do
otherwise would be irresponsible.
Abraham and Customs
As a lad, Abram must have stood in awe of the famous
ziggurats and other buildings of Ur, his home city. The well
organized society of ancient Ur would have also left a lasting
impression on this young man. Abram would have been influenced
by Ur-Nammu; Leon Wood states, "For even if the period [of UrNammu] began a few years after Abraham left for the promised land,
conditions would not have greatly changed in this length of time." 100
The departure of Abram, Terah, Lot, and Sarai from this beautiful
city at its zenith of glory, should be recorded among the miracles of
the Bible. The code of Ur-Nammu was ordering the peace which
contributed to the prosperity of Ur. The element which made the city
repulsive to Abram was its idolatry. It was dedicated to the idolgods. Abram's God was Jehovah Elohim the great Creator.
Abram began a faith relationship with Jehovah through the
ancient verbal message of Noah or perhaps the revelation of Jehovah
in His manifold creation.—H. Morris suggests, man may have
learned the truth of the Godhead from the stars—The Apostle tells us,
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead, so they are without excuse," (Rom.
1:20). Abram knew the Godhead, although his fathers did not, "And
Joshua said unto all the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,
Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even
Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they
84 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
served other gods", (Joshua 24:2). Abraham obeyed Jehovah:
Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred,
and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will
show thee; and I will make of thee a great nation,
and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and
thou shalt be a blessing. And I will bless them that
bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in
thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
Gen. 12:1-3
In leaving his country, Abram was promised with personal
blessings, and all the families of the earth were also promised a
special blessing. The latter would be blessed in a new dimension of
creation-marriage, (Jewish creation marriage)— throughout the
remainder of this dissertation creation-marriage will focus on Israel’s
guardianship of creation-marriage—after all Jesus was born of the
house and lineage of David, a Jew. It must be kept in mind that
although Abram left his country and forsook his idolatry, he did not
sever those customs and laws which comprised the spirit of Noah—
this was his reasonable obligation as a world citizen. Those customs
and laws which regulated violence as ordained by Jehovah through
Noah followed Abram and were practiced by all the Patriarchs. This
was not altered until Jehovah appeared to Moses on Mt. Sinai. We
shall see that the ancient codes and customs regulated the behavior of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And some of these codes impacted their
marriage practices.
Shortly after arriving in the Promised Land, Abram prepared
sacrificial offerings to Jehovah. This is the first recorded sacrifice to
Jehovah since Noah's at the subsiding of the flood. This is solid
evidence that Abram was walking with his God; nevertheless Abram
forsakes his new land for fear of a current drought. He sought refuge
in Egypt—some believe this was a lapse of faith—with his half-sister
and wife, Sarai. Fearing his life, because he assumed Sarai's beauty
would entice the Egyptians to kill him and take his wife, Abram hid
behind Sarai his half sister-wife. Although Abram was wrong to
initiate this scheme, he was correct about the sexual interests of the
Egyptians. Their art depicts their women wearing light pervious
clothing which was designed to reveal the female body. Their
Do Customs Matter?
85
obsession with the sexual delight of their beautiful women reached
the height of monomania in this account from Herodotus who records
the preoccupation with sex even entered the domain of the mortuary.
The wives of men of rank when they die are not
given at once to be embalmed, nor such women as
are very beautiful or greater regard than others, but
on the third or fourth day after their death (and not
before) they are delivered to the embalmers. They
do so about this matter in order that the embalmers
may not abuse their women [sexually], for they say
that one of them was taken once doing so to the
corpse of a woman lately dead, and his fellowcraftsman gave information. 101
An interesting note was found in the March 14, 1988 issue of Time
magazine. A team of American biblical scholars deciphered the text
of the Genesis Apocryphon, a Dead Sea Scroll. Although only a few
dozen images have been developed, yet the scholar’s believe that they
shed light on the ancient customs of the Bible. "Most startling are
new passages that record in great detail the physical beauty of
Abraham's wife Sarah. These include descriptions of the contours of
Sarah's breasts".
Pharaoh did take Sarai to wife, however the Lord God
intervened and sent plagues upon him revealing that he had taken the
wife of another man. Abram was permitted to leave Egypt with his
half-sister-wife. It appears that adultery was regulated in Egypt,
nevertheless creation-marriage hand fallen on bad times in ancient
Egypt a place that was unusually corrupt. But before we investigate
this fact, let us follow Abram back to Canaan to the land which was
famous for its written alphabet and infamous for its sodomy.
Customs of the Fertility God and Goddess
Expelled from Egypt, Abraham, Sarah, and their nephew Lot
returned to the Land with a refreshed determination to trust JehovahElohim. Abraham would go on to grow in grace, while Lot would
grow in disgrace, nearly drowning in the corrupt customs of Canaan.
The religion of Canaan was at the heart of the matter:
86 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
Canaanitish culture was based on that of Babylonia,
and begins with the introduction and use of copper
and bronze. When Canaan became a Babylonian
province, it naturally shared in the civilization of the
ruling power. The religious beliefs and deities of
Babylonia were superimposed upon those of the
primitive Canaanite. 102
As mentioned, Abraham and Lot were natives of Babylon and
therefore would not be terribly startled by the customs of Canaan.
This explains why Lot could make Sodom his home; but there was
something in Canaan which was actually unnatural even to
Babylon—the custom of sexual perversion. One would think that the
custom of defiling all virgins through a religious temple rite was the
height of corruption, but Canaan would raise corruption to even
higher levels.
It may be stated without exaggeration that the
Canaanite religion was the most sexually perverted,
morally depraved, and blood thirsty of all ancient
history. It was for this reason that God ordered
Joshua to exterminate their very culture, citizens,
animals and cities. The head god of the Canaanite
religion was El. His wife was Asherah. He also
married his sisters, one of whom was Asterah. 103
Asterah was probably the epithet of Istar (Babylon), Asteroth
(Canaan), goddess of fertility.104 As we study the ancients we are
impressed with the omnipresence of this female deity. She appears as
Astarte (Phoenicia), Isis (Egypt), Demeter (Greek), Aphrodite
(Greek), Ishtar (Assyrian), Venus (Roman), Artemis (Assyrian), and
Virgo. Henry Morris has this interesting comment:
Satan is notoriously a corruptor, rather than an
innovator. Hence it is probable that the system of
paganism, with its astrological emblems and
complex mythology and mysteries, represents a
primeval distortion of God's true revelation
Do Customs Matter?
87
concerning His creation and promised redemption of
the universe.
Thus, the zodiac system of
constellations may originally have been devised by
the antediluvian Patriarchs as a means of indelibly
impressing the divine promises on the consciousness
of mankind through marking them on the very
heavens themselves. If so, the subsequent system of
astrology is a gross corruption of the original
evangelical significance of the heavenly bodies,
created originally to serve in part for signs and
seasons. The Virgin (Virgo), whose sign among the
stars once reminded men of the promised Seed of the
woman, began to assume the proportions of an
actual Queen of Heaven; and Leo, the great sidereal
lion at the other end of the Zodiac, became a
spiritual King of Heaven. 105
It is now believed that the origin for the identification of the
constellations was universal and not limited to Greek mythology as
was once thought.
The principal achievement of the science of
astronomy in the centuries during which the books
of the OT were written was the arrangement and
naming of the constellations, and there can be no
reasonable doubt that the same system was known to
the Hebrews as that which has been handed down to
us through the Greek astronomers. 106
Morris expands the constellation theory stating that Simiramis, the
wife of Nimrod, was the first false virgin, Virgo, the Queen of
Heaven. Nimrod was the first false lion, Leo, the King of Heaven.
The heavens were intended to declare the Glory of God. The
corruption of which caused the Apostle to cry out:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven
against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men,
who hold the truth in unrighteousness, because that
which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
88 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
God hath shown it unto them. For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that
they are without excuse; because, when they knew
God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. Professing
themselves to be wise, they became fools, and
changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like corruptible man, and birds, and
four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor
their own bodies between themselves, who changed
the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served
the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up
unto vile affections; for even their women did
change the natural use for that which is against
nature; and likewise also the men, leaving the
natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one
toward another, men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompense of their error which was meet.
(Rom. 1:18-27)
The consequence of false worship is wrong conduct, conversely the
result of true worship is moral or right conduct. The Apostle stated:
"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the
Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that
Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Spirit", (I Cor. 12:3). Jesus said, "God
is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and
in truth", (Jn. 4:24). Again the Apostle adds, "For through him
[Jesus] we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father", (Eph.
2:22). The equation simply states that if you do not worship in the
true Spirit you will worship in the Evil spirit, and the natural desires
of the evil worshipper will be perverted.
Do Customs Matter?
89
Abraham was called out of Babylon by Jehovah God in order
to give mankind a new start. Man failed under Adam, and Noah, now
he would have a new leader and example. Abraham departed from
Babylon and entered the land of Canaan. The natives, however, were
thoroughly corrupted by the customs of Babylon, and God would
direct Abraham to establish the first literal kingdom of God on earth
in this Promised Land, Canaan. The Canaanites included the
Phoenicians, Jebusites, Amorites, and the Hittites, with such well
known cities as Gaza, Megiddo, Jericho, Sodom, Gomorrah, and
Jerusalem. Ham, who was cursed for looking upon the nakedness of
his father, was the father of these Canaanite tribes. It is not surprising
that his posterity is notably immoral. Asteroth was the supreme
goddess of Canaan and the counterpart of Baal. Her cult originated in
Babylon—Istar her Babylonian counterpart was known as the
morning and evening star. Abraham discovered the city of AsterothKarnaim, a city dedicated to her worship. Some of the Canaanite
tribes have left few physical remains of their culture, but this is not so
of the Phoenicians:
Their religious ideas are important on account of the
influence they had on the Hebrews. Derived from
the Babylonians, one of the most corrupting
tendencies we notice was the ascription of sexual
characteristics to the chief deities of their pantheon,
such as Baal and Asteroth who was the great Naturegoddess, the Magna Mater, queen of heaven (Jer.
7:18). She was commonly identified with Aphrodite
or Venus. Her worship was too often accompanied
with orgies of the most corrupt kind, as at Apheca.107
The Encyclopedia Britannica gives us this description of the immoral
Phoenician mind:
The worship of the female along with the male
principle was a strongly marked feature of
Phoenician religion. The ghastly practice of
sacrificing human victims was resorted to in times of
great distress, or to avert national disaster. The god
90 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
who demanded these victims, and especially the
burning of children, seems to have been Milk, the
Molech or Moloch of the Old Testament. Another
horrible sacrifice was regularly demanded by
Phoenician religion: women sacrificed their virginity
at the shrines of Astarte in belief that they thus
propitiated the goddess and won her favor; licentious
rites were the natural accompaniment of the worship
of the reproductive powers of nature. 108
Babylon was apparently preoccupied with the female principle, while
the society of Canaan was preoccupied with the male principle.
Homosexuality with all it degrading acts was the accepted custom of
Sodom. Some commentators see the act of pederasty, as its
identifying sin.109 The men of this infamous city had left the natural
use of the woman and burned in their sexual lust one with another:
Men with men doing that which is unseemly. Sodom’s pederasty and
other homosexual acts may have been out done by the Americans.
Reports have surfaced of acts of homosexual debauchery that are not
fitting to even record in this dissertation. Billy Graham is not far
from the truth when he exclaims that God will have to apologize to
Sodom, if he further delays the judgment of America.
Just a short note here: The homosexuals of Sodom were
violent, although homosexuals claim to be the children of free and
unlimited love. Recall the Sodom account: The angels arrive at Lot's
door to visit him. They refuse Lot's offer to lodge with him, telling
Lot that they prefer to sleep in the street. Lot knowing the sexual
perversion of the men of Sodom persuades the angels to abide with
him. After enjoying a feast with unleavened bread—a sign of
religious devotion—the angels prepare to retire for the night. A mob,
the men and boys of the city, gather outside Lot's door and demand to
know the angels, i.e. to know them sexually. Lot closes the door
behind him and begins to admonish the crowd, "I pray you, brethren,
do not so wickedly". He judges their homosexual wickedness. The
backsliding Lot then offers the Sodomites his two virgin daughters.
He declares, "Behold now, I have two daughters who have not known
man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them
as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing". The
homosexual mob then cry out in unison, "Stand back". Who are you,
Do Customs Matter?
91
Lot, to judge our homosexual custom as wickedness. Then they
threaten to kill him. Their custom was universally accepted as good.
Lot was threatened with death because he condemned their sinful
custom. The men were prepared to murder Lot. These homosexuals
were violent, unloving people who were killers—some believe this is
true of all homosexuals if they are legally denied to practice their
cursed custom; their wickedness. The angels then pull Lot into the
house and reveal to him that they were sent by Jehovah God to save
him and his family from the violence of Sodom. The men of the city
are instantly judged by the angels and afflicted with blindness both
small and great. Then after the safe escape of Lot, his wife, and his
two virgin daughters, Jehovah God burns the city to the ground
destroying all the perverted boys, girls, men, women, and all living
things. Did the evil custom reach to every soul of Sodom? The
account states that all the people of Sodom were united in their
judgment of Lot: "the men of the city, even the men of Sodom,
compassed the house round both old and young, all the people from
every quarter." God judged the entire city—He incinerated it. The
question that bids an answer, Did all the living creatures of Sodom
have AIDS? Think about it! —I observed an AIDS-Free
sympathizing American AIDS activist wearing a T-shirt that read,
“We All Have AIDS” (a reference to all Americans)—Are we the
next to be judged? Perhaps our enemies could use this for an apology
to nuke us.
The custom of Sodom had become a terrible weapon; a
Satanic attack upon the Seed of the woman. The success of the
Sodomites would have resulted in the destruction of man's power to
propagate, preventing the birth of the Savior, and causing the death of
man. Homosexuality is atheism and death. The United States of
America is failing to control the sin of homosexuality because the
government is protecting this evil custom by promulgating laws in its
defense. Had the U.S. Congress been the government of Sodom they
could have issued in the possible extinction of the human race. God
interceded to govern Sodom—he destroyed the city and its
inhabitants. The Sodomite generation melted in the fire of sulfur;
Will this American generation melt from the slim disease, the ugly
death of AIDS. The fiery annihilation of Sodom is God's opinion and
view of homosexuality. Our God is a consuming fire.
92 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered
into Zoar. Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and
upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord
out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and
all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and
that which grew upon the ground. But his wife
looked behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.
And Abraham got up early in the morning to the
place where he stood before the Lord. And he
looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all
the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke
of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace.
And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities
of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and
sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he
overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.
Gen. 19:23-29
Smoking in defeat, the weapon-custom, homosexuality, failed to
overcome the world. Satan was again defeated, as God gave men a
new start in Abraham. Lot is the example of the salvation that was
offered through the following of Abraham. The question might be
expanded, "Were all the Canaanites homosexuals?" If so, then the
annihilation of Sodom was only the beginning of God's judgment.
Later God would require the Israelites to exterminate the remainder
of the inhabitants of Canaan, and this He did. It is not beyond
comprehension that all the inhabitants of Canaan had contracted
AIDS, and that they were a threat to all mankind; therefore its
judgment was the righteous act of God in saving mankind.
Regardless, Sodom was gone, removed from the earth. Nothing
remained but the fall-out of their ashes from the smoke of their
furnace.
But this is not the end of the story. Babylon The Mother Of
Harlots, as we said, had propagated the doctrine of harlotry and
adultery throughout Canaan through the deity Asteroth. This female
devil had one preoccupation, harlotry and adultery. The dilemma of
Asteroth is that her desire can only be satiated on the earth, and since
she knows that the earth is temporal, she tries to satisfy her appetite
for sex before she will be judged in the Day of the Lord. God's Word
Do Customs Matter?
93
gives us some insight into her ways:
My son, keep thy father's commandment, and
forsake not the law of thy mother: bind them
continually upon thine heart, and tie them about thy
neck. When thou goest, it shall lead thee; when thou
sleepest, it shall keep thee; and when thou awakest,
it shall talk with thee. For the commandment is a
lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of
instruction are the way of life: to keep thee from the
evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a
strange woman. Lust not after her beauty in thine
heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids. For
by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a
piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the
precious life.
Prov. 6:22-26
Proverbs chapter seven describes the "means of the whorish woman"
with a vivid description of the "the adulteress who hunts for the
precious life."
My son, keep my words, and lay up my
commandments with thee.
Keep my
commandments, and live; and my law as the apple
of thine eye. Bind them upon thy fingers, write
them upon the table of thine heart. Say unto wisdom,
Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy
kinswoman: That they may keep thee from the
strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth
with her words. For at the window of my house I
looked through my casement, and beheld among the
simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young
man void of understanding. Passing through the
street near her corner; and he went the way to her
house. In the twilight, in the evening, in the black
and dark night: and, behold, there met him a woman
with the attire of an harlot, and subtle of heart. She
is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:
now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in
94 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
wait at every corner. So she caught him, and kissed
him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I
have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed
my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee,
diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I
have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with
carved works, with fine linen of Egypt. I have
perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, cinnamon.
Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning:
let us solace ourselves with love. For the good-man
is not at home, he is gone on a long journey: he hath
taken a bag of money with him, and will come home
at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she
caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips
she forced him. He goeth after her straight-way, as
an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the
correction of the stocks; till a dart strike through his
liver; as a bird hasteneth to the snare, and knoweth
not that it is for his life. Hearken unto me now
therefore, O ye children, and attend unto the words
of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her
paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea,
many strong men have been slain by her. Her house
is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of
death.
Prov. 7
The metaphor has a literal value which cannot be denied, as we watch
the cunning craftiness of this Asteroth, the strange woman of the
corner. I have always been intrigued by the religiosity of this whore.
She boasts of having peace offerings and of paying her vows on the
very day of her adultery—Was it the Sabbath? What was she trying
to say? It appears she thinks adultery is a religious act, an act which
in her eyes is holy. She seems to have the idea that she could commit
adultery and at the same time preserve her conviction that she was a
perpetual virgin. Asteroth’s worshipers praised her as "The Virgin",
"The Virgin Mother", and the "Holy Virgin." Regarding her title Will
Durant comments, "this merely meant that her amours were free from
all taint of wedlock." He continues: “In Babylon she was the goddess
of war as well as love, of prostitutes as well as mothers; she called
Do Customs Matter?
95
herself a compassionate courtesan.” 110
The concept which permits a man to commit adultery without
the taint of adultery is the fuel of hell, the philosophy of harlots. The
spirit of adultery amazingly promotes a claim of innocence and a
strange idea of rightness. The harlot of Proverbs calls her sin, love.
Knowing her time is limited she became aggressive, "So she caught
him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him: let us
take our fill of love until the morning. "Although she is dead wrong,
she is oblivious to the truth. She is a whore, who thinks she is a holy
virgin. The true virgin, however, would be a humble Jewess. A
young virgin who would forever ponder, in her heart, the miracle of
being overshadowed by the Holy Ghost, and then the joy of
delivering the world it’s Savior.
Abraham, Hagar, Ishmael, Rebecca, Jacob, and Custom
The lives of the Patriarchs often leave us with many
unanswered questions. Why were Abraham and Jacob permitted to
practice polygamy? Why did Jacob serve Laban so faithfully? The
answers to these questions are often found in the customs and laws
that existed during the lives of these men. It must be remembered
that the laws that Noah and his sons promulgated were ordained of
God. The customs which preceded those laws were often just as
binding to the ancient societies—this did not mean that these customs
and laws were perfect; they were as all law: weak. This would not
completely change with the Law of Moses as we shall see: the law
was weak because it brought the knowledge of sin—not the solution
for the redemption of sin. But until Moses the ancient codes would
prevail as the law of the land. As we stated from (CU § 6) divorce
and polygamy were accepted customs in Ur Nammu: "If a man
divorces his primary wife, he must pay her one mina of silver."
However the polygamy of Abraham and Jacob were produced by yet
other customs. These men were holy men, therefore it is no surprise
that there are no recorded divorces in their lives.
Recall (CU § 22), where the slave-woman who spoke
insolently to her mistress was penalized by having her mouth scoured
with salt, and (CL § 26) where the children of the true or first wife
become the rightful heirs of their father's estate even though their
96 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
father has had children by a slave-wife. The children of the slavewife are dis-inherited. These ancient laws shed some light on
Abraham’s conduct with Hagar, however the ancient customs reveal
even greater light.
In 1925 archaeologists discovered thousands of tablets in the
ancient city of Nuzi, or Nuzu. Cyrus Gordon states that these tablets
draw the most intimate picture we have of the ancient customs which
reflect the culture of Abraham.111 Abraham complained to the Lord
God that he had no heir, save Eliezer, of Damascus. In the light of
the Nuzi texts we have support for Abraham's adoption of his houseborn slave son, Eliezer. Gordon states that at Nuzi adoption played a
significant role as the childless couple adopted an heir as an insurance
policy to support them in their golden years. The adopted heir would
look after them, repair their home, supply food, as well as mourn
their death, and prepare their grave.112 The custom of adoption
secured Abraham an heir. He left his homeland and idolatry, but he
could not forsake what he believed to be acceptable customs and the
legal ideas of his world. Nuzi was located in northeastern
Mesopotamia, the homeland of Abraham.
Marital customs from Nuzu as well as the code of
Hammurabi provided that, if a man's wife had no
children, the son of a handmaid could be recognized
as the legal heir. Hagar's relationship to Abraham
and Sarah is typical of the customs that prevailed in
Mesopotamia. 113
Abraham may have justified acquiring an heir through the provisions
of the ancient codes and customs, but his failure to trust the Lord God
for a son from the bowels of his marriage to Sarah should be marked
as one of the greatest sins of mankind. The son of custom, Ishmael,
became the father of Islam. Later giving rise to the likes of
Mohammed, Kohmeni, Kadaffy, Hussein, and Arafat. What would
the world have been like without Ishmael, and Islam—One of the
most profound verses in the Bible for the twenty-first century must be
the prophesy regarding Ishmael: “And he will be a wild man; his
hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him;
and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” Gen. 16:12.
God had promised Abraham greatness if he would walk by faith.
Do Customs Matter?
97
What would have been the greatness of the nation of Abraham, Israel,
without their natural Arabic adversary.
Abraham was apprehensive when Sarai drove out Hagar and
her son, and rightly so for the ancient custom forbid this act. Finegan
raises the custom to law when he states, "there was a legal basis for
this apprehension." 114 Abraham employed another custom when he
chose a wife for Isaac. This would be unacceptable in the west today,
however it must be noted that Isaac loved Rebecca. Not only did he
love the lady of his father's choosing, but he also expected his father
to acquire him a wife. And Abraham did just that. The price of the
Rebecca was paid in jewels of gold, jewels of silver, and garments.
Burrows debates the meaning of these gifts: on the one hand they
could have been a purchase price and on the other hand they could
have been compensatory to a family who was losing a daughter. 115
It should be pointed out that oriental women feel sorry for the
brides of America and the west because they are given away for
nothing. They take pride in their price, believing that the higher the
price the greater their self worth. It was also unlikely that the man
who invested good money in his bride would divorce her over a
whim.116 Jacob's life suggests further interest in the ancient customs.
In Nuzu men sold themselves into slavery in order to
obtain, for instance, a wife. In other words, men who
knew that they would never have enough money to
pay the bride price for a wife of their own, held that
it was better to be a married slave than a free
bachelor. This nearly parallels the story of Jacob,
who worked so long (though not technically as a
slave) to win his bride from her father. 117
When Jacob awoke and found that he married Leah—the fellowship
of tenting together constituted marriage—he had reason to be angry
with Laban. Though the tenting ceremony was binding, Jacob was
permitted, by custom, more than one wife. Consequently he could
serve another seven years for Rachael. This was compounded by the
custom which permitted Jacob to father children by the handmaids of
both Leah and Rachael. Thus, Jacob became the husband of four
women. Perfectly acceptable with the custom of the day—remember
98 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
this took place before Moses.
Like Abraham, his first wife, Sarai was eventually blessed
with the promised seed, so Jacob’s first wife, Leah, gave birth to both
Levi and Judah. Leah was the mother of Israel's priests and the
mother of the promised seed, for "the scepter shall not depart from
Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and
unto him shall the gathering of the people be", (Gen. 49)—Shiloh , a
reference to Christ. The seed of the true Virgin was destined through
Leah. But some may object: Was not this marriage a matter of fraud?
That is a fact, for it was just that. Nevertheless Leah would give birth
to the serpent crusher—Most civil judges would award an annulment
to the victim of a fraudulent marriage, God here blesses the union.
Rachael's act of stealing her father's images appears as a theft
motivated by idolatry, but the Nuzu library reveals that her intention
was aimed at acquiring her father's estate. "The possession of the
household gods was tantamount to the title to an estate. Her brothers,
one of whom would have become the chief heir." 118 Rachael now
held the right to her father’s estate. At first glance her act smacked of
an angry daughter who recoiled from the agony of having to share her
husband with her older sister, but perhaps we see a form of ancient
justice in Rachel’s larceny.
Before we leave the land of Canaan we should take note of
the customs recorded in Genesis 38. The Roman Catholic Church
attempts to support their doctrine of birth control with the recorded
act of Onan; "And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it
came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled
it on the ground, least he should give seed to his brother. And the
thing which he did displeased the Lord: wherefore he slew him also,
(Gen. 38). The custom of levirate marriage was obviously common
to this society. It would be formally codified by Moses, however
here we see that it was known by Onan. Some may see polygamy in
the levirate custom, but a close examination will reveal that it fully
supported monogamy. Observe the devastating thought of Onan,
"and Onan knew that the seed should not be his." If the seed would
not have been his, then neither would Tamar have been his. The truth
of the matter is that the seed of Tamar was his brother Er's, as the
mother of the seed was Er's. Levirate marriage was not polygamy.
The last custom we will discuss in this section is found in the
Do Customs Matter?
99
judgment that Judah sentenced upon Tamar. When Judah learned
that his daughter-in-law was pregnant by harlotry he unleashes the
ultimate condemnation on the girl, "bring her forth, and let her be
burned." The ancient’s penalty for harlotry was a bitter form of
capital punishment.
Immunity
"L'etat c'est moi", a thought believed to be spoken by King
Louis XIV, seems to be the thought of Judah as he recoils from his
sin. The Divine Right of Kings, was in existence from antiquity past.
Judah a Patriarch was bound in the tribal setting. The father
tribesman was the civil authority by divine right. Noah was the
supreme court as would be the claim of the Pharaoh’s. Some believe
that the law cannot be illegal. Government immunity is a
requirement of human government. The King is the law. Immunity
is the birthstone of infallibility. The Judge of the court cannot judge
himself. Noah would judge Ham and sound the degree as a righteous
one, even though he was drunk. Human law has always been
weakened by spiritual wickedness in high places, and especially by
kings. The Pope’s claim to infallibility rests in his kingship. Yes,
Louis XIV was the state “The State Is Me”; L’etat c’est moi is what
he said.
A Theocracy was in place with the advent of the lawgiver,
Moses, and the following course of judges, however the arrival of a
king took on a threat to the peace of the Theocracy. The Lord God
warned the nation regarding the nature of a king and of the affect the
king would have upon the people. In Deuteronomy, God established
a standard for the king of Israel because He saw that when His people
secured the Promised Land they would willfully demand a king like
their neighbors. The cry the Lord God heard was a dreadful sound.
Departure was in the whine of His own children. A nation He
protected and blessed was now forsaking Him as their King. When
they turned from Him they turned to another, their king. They now
put their trust in the leader of their nation, a man. Since the man
would be over the people his very existence in that state was a cause
of concern. The initial regulation of the standard was to the people of
the king. They were to permit God to choose the king. The king was
not to multiply horses in an attempt to return to Egypt. Neither could
100 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
he multiple to himself gold or wives, for the multiplication of wives
would cause the king's heart to turn away from his God. The king
was to write a copy of the law and to read and keep the law all the
days of his life, that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren.
The king was caught in a dilemma. A man with his human
sinful nature was chosen to be the sovereign over the nation. The
people were subject to him. Their children were subject to him.
Their service was subject to him. Their material wealth was subject
to him. Their governors were subject to him. Their law-givers were
subject to him. Consequently the king believed that the law of the
land was subject to him. Although this was not the case, yet
unfortunately it was the case. King Louis the XIV believed he was
the law, "L'etat c'est moi." Even in the United States we support the
king with what we call: presidential immunity.
Egypt - The Danger Greater Than Bondage
The sexual deviants of Babylon, Canaan, and Sodom had a
sister deviant in Egypt. Previously we mentioned that the lust of
Egypt even reached to the coffin of a beautiful female corpse, but that
was not the only depravity of the Egyptians. The theme of this study
is investigating the methods that Satan employed in an attempt to
corrupt creation-marriage, and here in Egypt we find a new
contaminant. The purpose of which was to hinder and prevent the
seen of the woman from being born. For his birth marked the death
of the Serpent with a crushing head wound. The clue that leads us to
consider the evil nature of the Egyptian attack is found in the book of
Leviticus. Here Moses specifically names the abominations of the
Egyptians.
Joseph was welcomed to Egypt with open arms and a
gripping hand:
And it came to pass after these things, that his
[Joseph's] master’s wife cast her eyes upon Joseph;
and she said, Lie with me. But he refused, and said
unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth
not what is with me in the house, and he hath
committed all that he hath to my hand; there is none
greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back
Do Customs Matter?
101
anything from me but thee, because thou art his
wife, how then can I do this great wickedness, and
sin against God? And it came to pass, as she spoke
to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto
her, to lie by her, or to be with her, and it came to
pass about his time, that Joseph went into the house
to do his business; and there was none of the men of
the house there within. And she caught him by his
garment, saying Lie with me: and he left his garment
in her hand, and fled, and got him out. Gen. 39:7-15
In Egypt, the land of artifacts, it is surprising that no ancient
code of laws has been uncovered, nevertheless we have evidence that
reveals the nature of its supreme court; since Pharaoh believed he was
the supreme court who protected the rights of his people. The rights
of the people are their customs. Therefore, knowledge of their
customs will reveal their laws, or the rights of the people, and book of
Leviticus indirectly reveals the accepted customs of Egypt. The
following is a list of certain customs that were practiced in the land of
the pharaohs:
1. They uncovered the nakedness of their fathers.
2. They uncovered the nakedness of their mothers.
3. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-mothers.
4. They uncovered the nakedness of their sisters.
5. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-sisters.
6. They uncovered the nakedness of their grand-children.
7. They uncovered the nakedness of their daughters-in-law.
8. They uncovered the nakedness of their aunts.
9. They uncovered the nakedness of their sisters-in-law.
10. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-children.
11. They uncovered the nakedness of their step-grandchild.
12. They approached a woman during her uncleanness.
13. They lay carnally with their neighbor's wives.
14. They burned their children to death in sacrificial worship.
15. Their men would sexually lay with other men.
16. They sexually laid with animals
(paraphrase - Lev. 18)
102 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
Uncovering the nakedness is a Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse;
thus the customs of Egypt included incest of every kind,
homosexuality, and bestiality. The Lord God introduced this section
of Leviticus with these words:
And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto
the children of Israel, and say unto them, I am the
Lord your God. After the doings of Egypt
[customs], wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and
after the doings of the land of Canaan, to which I
bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in
their ordinances [laws].
Lev. 18:1-3
God then goes on to state the case exactly: "None of you shall
approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness:
I am the Lord." The peculiar custom of Egypt was incest, and sexual
perversion. From the language of Leviticus it appears that incest and
wife swapping was ordained as a right of an Egyptian. William J.
Hopewell and others commenting on (Deut. 24) make this
observation: "When Deuteronomy 24 was written, the Jewish people
had followed the terrible sin of the Egyptians in wife-swapping:" 119
perhaps the thirteenth item listed above refers to this custom.
Leviticus 18 closes with this admonition:
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and mine
judgments, and shall not commit any of these
abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor
any stranger that sojourneth among you. For all
these abominations have the men of the land done,
who were before you, and the land is defiled.
Lev. 18:26-27
"After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt,
shall ye not do", the doings of the land were their customs, and as we
said, it appears that the listed items may have been the legal rights of
the citizens of Egypt. This is not surprising since America protects
the rights of the homosexual, the adulterer, and the abortionist. But,
unlike the U.S., it appears that Egypt ordained incest, and protected
the rights of their citizens to marry within the forbidden degrees of
Do Customs Matter?
103
consanguinity. In his volume, Folkways, William Graham Sumner
writes concerning the incest of the Egyptians:
In the Egyptians mythology Isis and Osiris
were sister and brother as well as wife and husband.
The kings of ancient Egypt married their sisters and
daughters. The doctrine of royal essence was very
exaggerated, and was applied with quantitative
exactitude. A princess could not be allowed to
transmit any of it [family wealth] away from the
possessor of the throne. There is said to be evidence
that Ramses II married two of his own daughters and
that Psammetik I married his daughter. Artaxerxes
married two of his daughters. The Ptolemies adopted
this practice. The family married in and in for
generations, especially brothers and sisters, although
sometimes of the half-blood. "Indicating the
Ptolemies by numbers according to the order of their
succession, the II married his niece and afterwards
his sister; IV his sister; VI and VII were brothers and
they consecutively married the same sister; VIII
married two of his own sisters consecutively; XII
and XIII were brothers and consecutively married
their sister, the famous Cleopatra. 120
Adolf Erman in his work, Life in Ancient Egypt, continues this
thought:
There existed also another custom foreign to our
ideas, the marriage with a sister; This became
common in Egypt during the Ptolemaic and Roman
periods. Most of the Ptolemics married their sisters,
and under the Emperor Commodus two-thirds of all
the citizens of Arsi had done the same. Marriage
with a sister shocks our moral sense, but seemed
most natural to the Egyptians, just as in modern
Egypt marriage with a cousin is considered to be
most sensible and right. The gods set an example in
point; the brothers of Osiris and Set having married
104 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
their sisters, Isis and Nehthys. 121
Water seeks its own level, as the people their leaders. It is not
surprising to find the Egyptians committing incest since it was the
practice of their gods and pharaohs. Will Durant commenting on the
morals of Egypt stated, "The government of the Pharaohs resembled
that of Napoleon, even to the incest." He goes on to say:
Very often the king married his own sister—
occasionally his own daughters—to preserve the
purity of the royal blood. It is difficult to say
whether this weakened the stock. Certainly Egypt
did not think so, after several thousand years of
experiment; the institution of sister-marriage spread
among the people, and as late as the second century
after Christ two-thirds of the citizens of Arsinoe
were found to be practicing the custom. The words
brother and sister, in Egyptian poetry, have the same
significance as lover and beloved among ourselves.
In addition to his sisters the Pharaoh had an
abundant harem, recruited not only from captive
women but from the daughters of the nobles and the
gifts of foreign potentates [Solomon's 1000 wives,
my comment]; so Amenhotep III received from a
prince of Naharina his eldest daughter and three
hundred select maidens. Some of the nobility
imitated this tiresome extravagance on a small scale,
adjusting their morals to their resources. 122
Satan would fail to corrupt the generation of the promised
seed through incest. The Lord God destroys the first-born males and
drowns their fathers in the Red Sea, he then prohibits his children to
re-enter the land of Egypt. The death custom of Sodom was
destroyed by sulfur-fire, and the death custom of Egypt by the
death-angel. God went one step further, he attached the death penalty
to anyone who would practice the customs of Egypt and Canaan: "For
whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls
that commit them shall be cut off from among their people;” to cut
Do Customs Matter?
105
off means to put to death. It is not surprising that Western
Civilization is built on the morals and customs of Moses. In the State
of Maine we find this list of forbidden degrees:
No man shall marry his mother, grandmother,
daughter, granddaughter, stepmother, grandfather's
wife, son's wife, grandson's wife, wife's
granddaughter, sister, brother's daughter, sister's
daughter, father's sister or mother's sister, (Marriage
Law, State of Maine, ' 31)
An interesting (AP) Moscow news release read, "Soviet paper blames
incest for infant deaths in village." In order to prevent paying
dowries the people of the Central Asian Republic of Turkmenia resort
to incest. The Russian medics attribute the high mortality rate here
on intermarriage within the bonds of consanguinity. "We are
powerless in the case of the death of a child of related parent."
The Apostle declared that the truth of God's will is known by
the heathen because it is revealed to them, "For the invisible things of
him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made." Therefore it is not strange to learn of the
sexual inhibitions of some native tribes. "The Savages Dread Of
Incest", is the chapter title of Freud's book, Totem and Taboo. The
basis of the prohibition of the members of the totem was their dread
of incest. Sigmund Freud, a non-Biblicist, aptly confesses his
ignorance of the origin of their dread of incest:
This sternly maintained prohibition is very
remarkable. There is nothing to account for it in
anything that we have hitherto learned from the
conception of the totem or from any of its attributes;
that is, we do not understand how it happened to
enter the system of totemism.
Freud's comments go on to reveal the fear of these tribesmen: Among
the Battas of Sumatra these laws of avoidance affect all near
relationships. For instance, it would be most offensive for a Battan to
accompany his own sister to an evening party. A brother will feel
most uncomfortable in the company of his sister to an evening party.
106 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
If either comes into the house the other prefers to leave. Nor will a
father remain alone in the house with his daughter any more than the
mother with her son. The Dutch missionary who reported these
customs added that unfortunately he had to consider them well
founded. It is assumed without question by these races that a man
and a woman left alone together will indulge in the most extreme
intimacy, and as they expect all kinds of punishments and evil
consequences from consanguineous intercourse, they do quite right to
avoid all temptations by means of such prohibitions.
Among the Akamba (or Wakamba) in British East
Africa, a law of avoidance is in force which one
would have expected to encounter more frequently.
A girl must carefully avoid her own father between
the time of her puberty and her marriage. She hides
herself if she meets him on the street and never
attempts to sit down next to him, behaving in this
way right up to her engagement. But after her
marriage no further obstacle is put in the way of her
social intercourse with her father.
The most widespread and strictest avoidance, which
is perhaps the most interesting one for civilized
races is that which restricts the social relations
between a man and his mother-in-law. It is quite
general in Australia, but it is also in force among the
Melanesian, Polynesian, and Negro races of Africa
as far as the traces of totemism and group
relationships reach, and probably further still.
On the Banks Islands these prohibitions are very
severe and painfully exact. A man will avoid the
proximity of his mother-in-law as she avoids his. If
they meet by chance on a path, the woman steps
aside and turns her back until he is passed, or he
does the same.
In Vanna Lava (Port Patterson) a man will not even
walk behind his mother-in-law along the beach until
Do Customs Matter?
107
the rising tide has washed away the trace of her
footsteps. But they may talk to each other at a
certain distance. It is quite out of the question that
he should ever pronounce the name of his mother-inlaw, or she his.
On the Solomon Islands, beginning with his
marriage, a man must neither see nor speak with his
mother-in-law. If he meets her he acts as if he did
not know her and runs away as fast as he can in
order to hide himself.123
In the west today it appears that men have some peculiar propensity
which repels them from their mothers-in law, but perhaps that
repulsion is actually a secret attraction. Nevertheless, the Egyptians
were not inhibited with any fear of sex within the forbidden degrees.
In the end one must consider the cause of the fall of the
Egyptian Empire. A civilization which introduced the world to
medical procedures, the chemistry of dyes, cosmetics, and
embalming, they excelled in letters (hieroglyphics and demotic) as
well as inventing the paper to write on, constructed the pyramids and
sphinx, raised up the Pharaoh's, King Tut, and Cleopatra, and left
behind that mathematical solution ∏ (in Egypt 3.16), (today, after
4000 years: 3.14159265). It is difficult to precisely identify what
disease caused this nation to fall from brilliance, but we should not
eliminate the corruption of incest.
Did incest weaken the stock of Egypt? Were the Jewish
woman birthing as the women of Egypt proclaim, "The Hebrew
women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are
delivered before the midwives come in unto them," (Ex. 1:19). The
small family of Jacob had in a mere four hundred years threatened the
nation of Egypt with their numbers, "Behold, the people of the
children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come on, Let us
deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that,
when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and
fight against us, and so get them up out of the land," (Ex. 1:9,10). As
we mentioned the Lord God added to the affliction of Pharaoh, he
destroyed their first-born and their fathers. His judgment of Egypt
began on that first Passover, and it has never ceased, for the prophet
108 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
Ezekiel predicts, "It shall be the basest of the kingdoms, neither shall
it exalt itself any more above the nations; for I will diminish them,
that they shall no more rule over the nations," (Ezek. 29:15). This
judgment has never ceased and will never cease. Could the sin of
incest be the everlasting reason? Is the judgment of this nation bound
up in its genes? Could this custom (an accepted social practice), or
law (the protected right by a state sovereign) be the cause of such
judgment? Yes! A thousand times, Yes! Listen to the anger of the
Apostle when he discovered incest in the Church of Corinth:
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are
gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of
our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such a one unto
Satan for the destruction of the flesh. I Cor. 5:4,5
This custom, incest, was practiced prior to the fall of the greatest of
ancient empires. Dear reader we are living during the fall of the
greatest civilization since Egypt, and that is not the most fearful
thing. The most fearful fall we are experiencing is the fall of the true
church, the true body of Christ. The church today has reached the
apostasy predicted by the Apostle:
Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together
unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be
troubled, neither by spirit, nor by work, nor by letter
as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand. Let
no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall
not come, except there come a falling away first ...
II Thess. 2:1-3a
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed
to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.
(I Tim. 4:1)
This know also, that in the last days perilous times
shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own
selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers,
Do Customs Matter?
109
disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without
natural affection, trucebreakers [covenant breakers:
divorcers], false accusers, incontinent, fierce,
despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady,
high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of
God: having a form of godliness, but denying the
power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort
are they which creep into houses, and lead captive
silly women laden with sins, led away with divers
lusts.
II Tim. 3: 1-6
Dear reader, we are at the cross-road. The battle has been drawn. Can
we stem this rising tide of evil custom, and permit another generation
the peace of living in a creation-marriage world? The Egyptian
customs were more dangerous than the bondage. Joseph escaped.
Will we?
110 Chapter Three
Jesus’ Doctrine
CHAPTER FOUR
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
Noah and his son's were commissioned to promulgate laws,
but The Law came by Moses. Although the codes of the ancient
societies marked the advancement of civilization, the Law of Moses
was a masterpiece of ancient and modern jurisprudence. It has rightly
been said that if the tables of stone were preserved, they would have
become objects of worship today. But the fact of the matter is that
the Law of God actually became an object of worship in the form of a
religion. Not that it became Judaism, but that it became to some a
belief in a way of salvation, a salvation of good works. The loftiness
of the Law appeared to promise righteousness to the true follower.
But this the law could not do. The Apostle was clear on this point,
"Moreover, the law entered, that the offense might abound," (Rom.
5:20). Here Paul directly states, that the law's purpose was to
condemn man, not to justify man. This is at the heart of
understanding the Gospel and understanding the Bible as a whole.
Now we know that whatever things the law saith, it
saith to them who are under the law, that every
mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God. Therefore, by the deeds
of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his
sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Rom.3:19,20
Some would say that Martin Luther was at the heart of the
Reformation, but the heart and soul of the Reformation was the cry,
Sola Gratia, by grace alone, i.e. faith alone in the finished work of
the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the central dynamic of the Gospel;
without this truth there would have been no Luther. The Law teaches
112 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and therefore
by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. In spite of these
driving words, men secretly reach to the law for their righteousness.
The law proves a man unjust, but it has no power to regenerate him;
to justify him. There are just some things the Law cannot do; in that
light the Law is weak. When man expects the law to provide him a
system to obtain righteousness, he is barking up the wrong tree.
Every purpose of the Law is destined to prove to man that he is guilty
of sin—capital sin. This fact must be kept in mind when we approach
any element in the study of the Law; polygamy and divorce are
elements of the law.
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under
the curse; for it is written, cursed is everyone that
continueth not in all things which are written in the
book of the law, to do them.
Gal. 3:10b
To the non-Jew the Decalogue is the Law (the Ten Commandments),
but to the Jew the entire revelation of God is the Law. When
considering specific commandments the Law actually records 613.124
Most scholars agree that the Law of Moses is divided into three
elements: a civil code, a religious code, and a moral code. The latter
is the distinctive feature of the Law. It reveals a righteous God, as
compared to the immoral idol-gods. The Gentile world establishes
their idyllic on the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue. Throughout
this dissertation all nations other than Israel are Gentile. The problem
is compounded because the church as a whole regarding marriage has
embraced the Gentile governments dictates of marriage-law. The
state promulgates laws regulating marriage, and the church foolishly
over-embraces those laws. This creates a problem. The problem is
that the church because of their belief in and embracement of
governmental marriage-laws is failing to regulate marriage according
to the dictates of the God of Creation. Regarding marriage, believers
often see the state and the church as the same law-giver. Believers
trust that they have certain God given rights which apparently seem
imbedded in some state regulations, but these are just the rights of the
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
113
sovereign man-king. And when the old legal philosophy is excited,
that obedience to the law is righteousness, some believers and some
churches practice legalism by employing the states marriage laws into
the churches marriage discussion, and practice. They use the law to
stop some mouths and to open others, but God said, that His Law was
intended to stop every mouth.
Please permit this parenthesis:(Marriage is not a Sacrament.
Before we continue any further keep this very important fact in mind:
Marriage is not a Sacrament. Marriage in and of itself does not
impart Grace. Marriage is the right thing to do, but it does not impart
grace; the righteousness of Salvation. The word sacrament means an
act that acquires the Grace of God. The only way to acquire the
Grace of God is to put faith in the substitutionary blood sacrifice of
the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.)
As we continue keep this point in mind regarding the law.
There is another sub objective of the law, i.e., to temporarily control
sin. The concept of controlling sin ensures the existence of sin. The
law cannot eradicate sin. To do so would require the extermination
of mankind. The law cannot make even one man righteous, nor could
it eradicate one sin. The law is weak in that light. But before we
discuss this let us just consider these points.
The Mosaic Law Was A Marriage Covenant
Yes, Israel married Jehovah in the giving and acceptance of
the law. The Scriptures speak of Israel as the wife of Jehovah and
Jehovah as the husband of Israel.
Thus saith the Lord, The people who were left of the
sword found grace in the wilderness, even Israel,
when I went to cause him to rest. The Lord hath
appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved
thee with an everlasting love; therefore, with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.
Jer. 31:3
Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee,
behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread
my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness. Yea,
114 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
I swore unto thee, and entered into a covenant with
thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine.
Ezek. 16:8
The marriage ceremony took place in the wilderness of Sinai:
And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in
basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the
altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and
read in the audience of the people; and they said, All
that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient,
and Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the
people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant,
which the Lord hath made with you concerning all
these words.
Ex. 24:6-8
It must be kept in mind that the law was unique to Israel and Jehovah.
It was literally their personal marriage contract. It was their intimate
exchange of vows. What the Law was to these two it could not be to
any other. This covenant was not made with any Gentile or any
church. We must remember that stubborn fact. Although the many
Gentiles want to share in the blessing of the Law, they nevertheless
do not want to share in the curses, and in the plagues of the Law.
Israel is the Chosen nation; His beloved nation. When Israel camped
before Sinai, she looked up to heaven and said, "I am Ruth, thine
handmaid, spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou
[Jehovah] art a near kinsman." And Jehovah returned, "I spread my
skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness. Yea, I swore unto thee,
and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou
becamest mine." God was the courtesan, providing security for his
beloved:
Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation,
and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And
Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the
congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and
the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And
when the cloud was taken up from over the
tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
115
their journeys; But if the cloud were not taken up,
then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken
up. For the cloud of the Lord was upon the
tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the
sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their
journeys.
Ex. 40:34-38
The quality of the Sinai marriage was as magnificent as you
would expect from the Creator, the Father of creation-marriage. It
was bound permanently. Inseparable.
Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God; him shalt thou
serve, and to him shalt thou cleave, and swear by his
name. For if ye shall diligently keep all these
commandments which I command you, to do them,
to love the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways,
and to cleave unto him.
Deut. 11:22
Leaving Egypt and cleaving to Jehovah, Israel was married as she
confesses that she would keep the commandments. Moses was the
preacher who performed the ceremony:
And Moses came and told the people all the words
of the Lord, and all the ordinances; and all the
people answered with one voice, and said, All the
words which the Lord hath said will we do. Ex. 24:3
The courtship led the bride into the tabernacle of her lover where the
Shekinah Glory entered and the marriage was consummated. The
vehicle of the seed of the woman, creation-marriage was now in the
hands of the children of Abraham, the Jewish nation, Israel.
The Mosaic Law Established a Religious Sect
Judaism is bound in the Law. It was to be legally
administered by the Levitical priesthood, a requirement attainable by
a single nation, the Chosen Nation. Their marriage to Jehovah was
marked with the union of faith. The wedding ring of Israel was a
golden memorial, the Sabbath. Although marriage is not a sacrament,
116 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
the law raises Israelite marriage to the lofty heights only surpassed by
the Savior's standard. In Israel the marriages of priests were
regulated to a greater extent than other marriages. Abel Isaksson in
his volume, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple, suggests that
the N.T. church should have a higher standard for marriage than
others because the church is a kingdom of priests in the new temple
age. Believers are the priests of the new temple, the body of Christ.
And like the Levitical priests they have a higher standard than the
world. Noting that Lev. 21:7 decrees that a priest must not marry a
harlot, a violated virgin or a divorced woman, Isaksson goes on to
state that Jesus' teaching on divorce in Matt. 19 was directly related to
his eschatological view of the new Temple in the kingdom age, and
the regulation of the priests of the new Temple: "Neither shall they
take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away, but they shall
take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a
priest before," (Ezek. 44:22).125
Although Isaksson is a fine scholar a disagreement with him
is here noted: Although the position of Levitical marriage and new
Temple priesthood marriage is a lofty standard, it does not reach the
height of perfection which Jesus reaches for all men: "What,
therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." This
preacher teaches that this rule of Jesus applies to all men of all time.
The Law regulated every aspect of Jewish life, including their
time. The Sabbath, the primary holy day, was followed with
numerous holy days, holy weeks, and holy years. Their clothing, diet,
and sacrifices were regulated. Their worship was to be exercised in a
tabernacle to be constructed in the most precise detail. However the
law could not transfer grace or righteousness; it could only transfer
guilt. Nevertheless the law was a religious code; it was the religious
creed of Israel.
The Law Was A Moral Code
From a moral standpoint the law surpassed the ancient codes
which fell away like the hoarfrost to the burning rising sun. David's
comments on the law of the Lord are fitting:
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul;
the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
117
simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing
the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure,
enlightening the eye. The fear of the Lord is clean,
enduring forever; the ordinances of the Lord are true
and righteous altogether. More to be desired are
they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter
also than honey and the honeycomb. Psa. 19:7-10
The reader may object: You dear writer have just said that the Law
could not make one righteous, yet David proclaims that the law of the
Lord is perfect, converting the soul. Let me explain: Taken as a
whole the law includes the three sections of the O.T., i.e. the books of
Moses (the Pentateuch: the first five book of the Bible referred to as
the books of the Law), the poetic books, and the historical books. To
understand the whole O.T. as the law of God is to understand Psa. 19.
Thus a true understanding of the entire O.T. will lead the believer to
the real Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. To
understand one’s sin in light of a coming sacrificed Messiah Savior is
to have the experience of having one’s soul converted. What we are
talking about in this chapter is the Law of God, the Decalogue, the
Ten Commandments, as an instrument of death not of life. As Paul so
aptly wrote:
Now we know that what things soever the law saith,
it saith to them who are under the law: that every
mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God.
Rom. 3:19
The moral beauty of the law led some to idolize it with their worship,
thus missing it's purpose: to reveal the true sacrifice, their Messiah.
Jehovah God created the Law to teach man his need for a Messiah, a
Savior who men could worship, and man could believe in with all his
heart to the converting and saving of his soul. But men missed the
point of the law. Realizing it's moral loftiness, and being unable to
worship two masters, they chose to worship the law and kill the
Messiah Savior. They could not accept the force of the law. A Jewish
man, the Apostle, Paul, came to understand the truth of the law, and
he fully learned its moral lesson: "I had not known sin but by the
law—that sin by the commandment might become exceedingly
118 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold
under sin," (Rom. 7). A study of the ancient codes will lead the
reader to see the superior moral quality of God's law; David’s
conclusion was that the "Law of thy mouth (of God) is better unto me
than thousands of gold and silver," (Psa. 119:72). Unlike the
casuistic (if - then) nature of the ancient codes the Decalogue sets a
strong moral tone, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me; Thou
shalt not make unto thee any graven image; Thou shalt not take the
name of the Lord thy God in vain; Remember the Sabbath day, to
keep it holy; Honor thy father and thy mother; Thou shalt not kill;
Thou shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not
bear false witness; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, wife,
manservant, maidservant, ox, ass, nor anything that is thy neighbors."
Where the ancient codes regulated the exceptional cases,126 God's law
regulated the common daily ones.
The Mosaic Law Was a Civil Code, the Constitution of Israel
And Moses came and told the people all the words
of the Lord, and all the judgments; and all the people
answered with one voice, and said, all the words
which the Lord hath said will we do. And Moses
wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in
the morning, and built an altar under the hill, and
twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of
Israel. And he sent young men to the children of
Israel, who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed
peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses
took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half
of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took
the book of the covenant, and read in the hearing of
the people; and they said, All that the Lord hath said
will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the
blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said,
Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord
hath made with you concerning these words.
Ex. 24:3-8
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
119
The civil nature of the law has too often been overlooked.
Immediately after Jehovah stated the Ten Commandments he
regulates the slave-master relationship. The next law regulates
murder, and then lesser problems of a civil nature. The civil
regulations make up a large section of the law. One scholar who has
not missed the importance of the civil nature of the law is Leon
Wood. Noting the ceremony recorded in Exodus 24:3-8 where Moses
sprinkles the altar and the people with the sacrificial blood after
preaching all the words of the Lord, and hearing the people vow to do
all the words of the law, Wood sees in this sealing in blood of the
testimony of God and in the testimony of the people as the birth of
Israel as a legitimate nation.127 This is a point of no small
significance. Wood describes the event by saying that Israel now
became a true nation, and again, Israel became God's chartered
nation. The law was the Constitution of Israel. The altar which
Moses erected to celebrate the union of Israel with her God was
composed of twelve pillars, to represent the twelve tribes of Israel.
The law was a moral dynamic, a religious dogma, and a civil
constitution. As a moral dynamic it extended to all peoples and
nations, but as a religious dogma and a civil constitution it was
wholly Israel's.
When Moses divided the blood of this sacrifice and sprinkled
it equally on the altar and on the people he beautifully depicted the
equality that exists in marriage. Isaksson makes this fitting comment:
"In the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel there was
no question of their being equal partners, nor was there in marriage
any question of man and woman being equal partners." 128 This
marriage was consummated when the Shekinal Glory entered the
Holy of Holies, and the marriage was made legal with the public
vows and signing of the covenant in blood. Marriage is a legal
agreement, and a physical agreement. The church can never be Israel
and Israel can never be the church.
The Law Is Weak
Sola Gratia is the cry of the preacher. Salvation is by grace
alone. The corrupt doctrine of works contaminates the purity of the
Gospel. The pollution of Legalism is at the heart of the heresy. It is
the leaven which the woman mixed with the meal to leaven the whole
120 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
lump. The fundamental Bible believing church has unitedly fought
this disease, and will continue to fight it—is my prayer to God.
When anyone is suspected of teaching works, he is identified and
publicly accused of propagating the lie. The faithful quickly applaud
the denunciation. But the most malicious nature of this evil is that
those who oppose it are often captured by its subtleness. It is here at
the junction of marriage that the believing church while accusing
others of Legalism become themselves unknowingly practitioners of
Legalism. The primary truth that all must come to understand about
the law is that the law is “weak.”
For there is verily a disannulling of the
commandment going before for the weakness
and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made
nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better
hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.
By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better
testament.
Heb. 7:18,19;22
The law was weak because it could not say: Thou shalt not divorce.
It could not say that because it already said, "Thou shalt not kill." To
prohibit divorce would have “totally” revealed the heart of man.
Jesus amplified the law to reveal the heart of the man who called his
brother a fool, and the man who looked upon a woman with lust. But
for Moses to prohibit divorce would have caused a rebellion in the
heart of man that would have brought the nation to naught. The will
of man explodes with unbridled force when ordered to remain with a
wife he has determined to drive from his life. If he cannot kill her, he
must have the right to divorce her. Polygamy and divorce were both
concessions of a weak law; and as the ancient codes revealed man in
his heart was committed to polygamy and divorce.
The Law Permits Polygamy
What was true about the law and divorce was true about the
law and polygamy. It appears the heart of man was so hard and
stubborn that he could not be legislated away from his sin. As we
have shown from the ancient law codes man assumed he has certain
rights; rights that he believed were his birthright. If the sovereign
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
121
king-man wanted several wives, or if his primary wife could not
provide offspring or what ever he expected, he believed he had a
unalienable right to acquire more than one wife.
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another
hated, and they have borne him children, both the
beloved and the hated, and if the first-born son be
hers that was hated; then it shall be, when he maketh
his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may
not make the son of the beloved first-born before the
son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born.
Deut. 21:15,16
Without any apology, the law acknowledges that polygamy was the
acceptable custom of all men, even at Sinai. This regulation
governing inheritance rights is relatively minor, but a major problem
when one considers the doctrine of creation-marriage—God only
created one wife for man. Notice that the man was permitted to
continue his hatred towards the wife of his first-born, although it
protected her honor in her child.
If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and
have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry
without the family unto a stranger; her husband's
brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him as
his wife, and perform the duty of an husband's
brother unto her. And it shall be, that the first-born
whom she beareth shall succeed in the name of his
brother who is dead, that his name be not put out of
Israel.
Deut. 25:5,6
As mentioned regarding Onan in Genesis 38—liver, meaning a
husband's brother—levirate marriage was not polygamy. If the child
of this marriage belonged to the deceased brother, then the mother
also belonged to the brother. Most commentators agree that the
levirate custom or law did not interfere with the living brother's
existent marriage. In other words within these limits the brother-inlaw's marriage might co-exist with the prohibition of marriage with a
brother's wife; whereas, if the deceased brother had a son or children,
122 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
such a marriage was forbidden as prejudicial to the fraternal
relation.129 The levirate however speaks well for procreation, on
which God obviously places a very high value.
Progressive spiritual development, or what is referred to in
the discipline of hermeneutics as progressive revelation, seems to
play a role in the man's understanding of marriage. Edersheim make
this observation:
Of course, against all this may be set the permission
of polygamy, which undoubtedly was in force at the
time of our Lord, and the ease with which divorce,
might be obtained. In reference to both these,
however, it must be remembered that they were
temporary concessions to "the hardness" of the
people’s heart. For, not only must the circumstances
of the times and the moral state of the Jewish and of
neighboring nations be taken into account, but there
were progressive stages of spiritual development. If
these had not been taken into account, the religion of
the Old Testament would have been unnatural and
an impossibility. Suffice it, that 'from the beginning
it was not so,' nor yet intended to be so in the end—
the intermediate period thus marking the gradual
progress from the perfectness of the idea to the
perfectness of it's realization. 130
As progression implies a growing knowledge base from premature to
mature, it appears that man’s understanding of creation-marriage had
reached such a low ebb that God had to gradually recover man from
his demise. Man's premature understanding of marriage includes the
following idea:
The Israelite matrimonial code is also formulated
entirely with regard to the husband's interests. Thus
the wife may not have liaisons outside marriage, but
the husband may do so, provided that he does not
thereby infringe another man's rights. As the
primary purpose of marriage is to maintain the man's
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
123
lineage through numerous offspring, polygamy is a
natural form of marriage. 131
If a man find a damsel who is a virgin, who is not
betrothed, and lay hold on her, and they be found;
then the man who lay with her shall give unto the
damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall
be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may
not put her away all his days.
Deut. 22:28,29
The law here assumes the right of the damsel's father to deny the
perpetrator the right of marriage which is mentioned in Exodus
22:16,17, however it makes no mention of the possibility that the
perpetrator was previously married. Actually it assumes that
possibility and the reflection is that the man would simply be
obligated to practice polygamy. It was not a capital crime for a
married man to deflower a virgin. The penalty for the seduction
simply required the seducer to marry the victim, and prohibited the
right to divorce the woman.
And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman who is
a bondmaid (slave girl) betrothed to an husband, and
not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall
be scourged; she shall not be put to death, because
she was not free.
Lev. 19:20
Apparently the woman did not resist with a scream; her punishment,
scourging, while the perpetrator was obviously unpunished.
When thou goest to war against thine enemies, and
the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine
hands, and thou hast taken them captive, and seest
among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a
desire for her, that thou wouldest have her as thy
wife, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house;
and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails, and
she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off
her, and shall remain in thine house and bewail her
father and her mother a full month; and after that
124 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and
she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have
no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go where
she will. But thou shalt not sell her at all for money;
thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because
thou hast humbled her.
Deut. 21:10-14
Polygamy may or may not be involved here but it appears that this
law sheds a favorable light on the possibility of such.
As previously mentioned, Jehovah knew the heart of the
people would demand a king when they secured the Promised Land.
He also knew the propensities of man's hard heart, the ravenous
polygamist, to multiply wives. As previously explained: man's
insatiable sin nature could not be redeemed by the law, the law
simply attempted to control man in his sin, and as we pointed out
polygamy was tolerated within the realm of the law. Polygamy was a
sin, which was not directly acknowledged by the law. It seemed the
only conditions it required was that the polygamist chose an
unbetrothed wife, and that he faithfully support all his wives.
Among the unacknowledged sins which God
tolerated because of the hardness of Israel's heart
was polygamy, which encouraged licentiousness and
the tendency to sensual excesses, and to which but a
weak barrier had been presented by the warning that
had been given for the Israelitish kings against
taking many wives (Deut 17:17), opposed as such a
warning was to the notion so prevalent in the East
both in ancient and modern times, that a well-filled
harem is essential to a princely court. 132
An Israelite king would now advance an additional threat to
creation-marriage, in that he was in a new position to acquire wealth,
and the consequence of his wealth would increase his power to
support a multitude of wives. The Lord foresaw the king drunk with
wives, to the turning away of his heart:
But King Solomon loved many foreign women; in
addition to the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
125
Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and
Hittites, of course the nations concerning which the
Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go
in to them, neither shall they come in unto you; for
surely they will turn away your heart after their
gods. Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had
seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred
concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. For
it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his
wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his
heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was
the heart of David, his father.
I Kings 11:1-4
What Is The Abomination of Deuteronomy 24:1-4
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her,
and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,
because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then
let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in
her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she
may go and be another man's wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a
bill of divorcement and giveth it in her hand, and
sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter’s
husband die, who took her to be his wife,
4 Her former husband, who sent her away, may not
take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled;
for that is abomination before the Lord. And thou
shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy
God giveth thee for an inheritance. Deut. 24:1-4
Moses now reveals to us in the Law, and I might say without
apology, the idea of divorce. Here again it just appears as an act that
will occur and it is without a strict prohibition. Jesus said that Moses
permitted it so because the heart of man was so callous, that it
126 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
appears for God to permit man to exist He had to permit divorce to
exist. At Sinai, God taught us that to permit man’s existence He had
to permit the existence of polygamy and divorce. Jesus would
however abolish that permission for not only would he prohibit
polygamy and divorce, but He would also provide the power and
grace for man to live lovingly while under that prohibition; the man
could now experience the new birth in Christ. Jesus could do what
the Law in no wise could perform.
Now let us examine this text. The hermeneutical principal of
Historical Priority, must be honored when interpreting any text of
Scripture, to do otherwise is foolhardy. The reader who attempts to
understand this text by employing his New Testament ideas will fail
to comprehend its meaning. We have labored to show you the nature
of the ancient law codes, and the historical concepts of the ancient
Eastern peoples. From these codes we have explored the dynamics
that generated ancient thought regarding divorce and polygamy. It is
of the gravest danger for the reader and exegete to bring his
historical-cultural thoughts into the ancient records, and this is just
what many have done. Abel Isaksson aptly chides John Murry for,
"basing his interpretation (Deut. 24) on Christian assumptions," 133
and Heth and Wedham join in chorus, "Murry, giving these verses an
interpretation based on New Testament assumptions, goes so far as to
say that the divorce is what is wrong here and bears the whole onus of
responsibility for the defilement that is sure to enter when the first
marriage is restored after the consummation of the second." 134
The O.T. divorce debate is centralized in the Deut. 24 text.
When all is said and done, the victor of this debate will emerge from
this ring of Scripture. While analyzing this text theologians speak of
it's protasis and the apodosis. The protasis is the subordinate clause,
and the apodosis is the main clause of a conditional sentence. The
former refers to the “if” of the proposal, while the latter refers to the
“then” of the condition, i.e., (condition/conclusion, or the if/then).
Verse 1 thru 3 of (Deut. 24:1-4) deal with certain if conditions, while
verse 4 deals with the then of the conditional statement. The majority
of commentators see divorce as the subject of this text; this is
incorrect. It is a remarriage text. The driving concern of the text is
found in (v. 4) which states that the abominable act is a prohibited
remarriage. When God said that the abomination would defile the
land, cause the land to sin, He uses the same language as he used in
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
127
Leviticus 18, the incest chapter.
Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for
in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out
before you. And the land is defiled; therefore I do
visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself
vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore
keep my statutes and mine judgments, and shall not
commit any of these abominations; neither any of
your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth
amoung you: For all these abominations have the
men of the land done, who were before you, and the
land is defiled; That the land spew not you out also,
when ye defile it, as it spewed out the nations that
were before you.
Lev. 18:24-28
The abomination is akin to the acts of incest listed in the Leviticus
text. Was the remarriage to a previous wife, who had herself
remarried, an act of incest? As we shall see the combined scholarship
of Isaksson, Yaron, Wenham, and Heth have collectively reached the
summit of understanding regarding the abomination. Therefore, since
the abomination is the primary object of this text, we will reveal this
truth before we discuss the meaning of the unclean thing or divorce.
The Abomination of Deuteronomy 24:4
As we noted there are three if conditions in this text: (1) If a
man found some uncleanness in his wife, and (2) If a man divorced
that wife, and (3) If that woman married another man, then that man
(the first husband) could not remarry that woman (his first wife)
because she was defiled. As mentioned the three if clauses are
subordinate, while the then clause is the main clause. And here the
main clause (the then clause) states that when the woman in question
meets the criteria of all the three subordinate conditions she is defiled
and it is then an abomination for her first husband to have her again.
Now divorce and remarriage are permitted in the law, save for this
one exception, id. est., the man could not marry a former divorced
wife who had been another man's after he put her away. However,
she was permitted to marry another. Heth and Wenham comment on
128 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
the general permission of divorce and remarriage within the law:
Why then does the Old Testament not ban divorce
altogether? We are just not told. It is true that in
ancient times divorce was expensive and infrequent;
perhaps it was thought that it would make for greater
social peace to allow divorce in a few cases rather
than to ban it altogether. The penalties for adultery
and divorce constantly reminded men and women
that under Old Testament law polygamy was
permitted, so a man could have sexual relations with
more than one woman perfectly legally. By
forbidding remarriage after divorce, Jesus
simultaneously forbade polygamy. The Old
Testament is therefore not inconsistent in both
allowing divorce and holding that a bond still
subsists between the original partners. If a
polygamous man could have relations with more
than one wife, so could a remarried divorcee. 135
As we simplify this text to the if-then interpretation we see a
similarity of this text with the Matthew 19 exception clause. In
Matthew divorce was forbidden except for one cause, and here we
find that remarriage is permitted except for one cause. The real
question of Deuteronomy 24 is not the meaning of some uncleanness,
but the meaning of defiled in (v. 4). Along with Murry, P.C. Craigie
forces his New Testament teaching into this text:
The language (defiled) suggests adultery (see Lev.
18:20) the sense is that the woman's remarriage after
the first divorce is similar to adultery in that the
woman cohabits with another man. However, if the
woman were than to remarry her first husband, after
divorcing the second, the analogy with adultery
would become even more complete; the woman
lives first with one man, then another, and finally
returns to the first. 136
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
129
Heth and Wenham continue to comment:
Yet in this statute the second marriage is regarded as
perfectly legal. It is the restoration of the first that is
prohibited (v. 4). Commentators advancing this
position seem to be reading New Testament ideas
back into the Old (cf. Matt. 5:32). The language
(defiled v. 4) is suggestive, but that it anticipates the
teaching of Jesus in the New Testament that
remarriage after divorce is adultery is by no means
certain. 137
The majority of the Deuteronomy 24 commentators labor the
unclean thing, “some uncleanness” (v. 1) in what seems as an endless
speculation; with very little discussion of (v. 4). This is done in their
attempt to prove that divorce was permitted in the law for infidelity,
or adultery as per their interpretation of the N.T., (Matt. 5 and 19).
But their interpretation is so wrong; it should go without saying, since
the law plainly required the death penalty for adultery, not divorce.
But in the discussion of Deut. 24 the defiled of (v. 4) and the
abomination has been given little mention. Dobson like Hopewell
suggest that the prohibition to remarry the defiled wife was aimed at
preventing the abominable custom of Egypt, that of wife swapping.138
Their explanation is that Moses by requiring a bill of divorce was
placing a written legal requirement in the way of hasty divorces.
Some may contend that the custom of wife swapping was made easy
with the ancient custom of verbal divorce.139 As it remains a custom
in Arabic lands today, the man had only to pronounce this verbal
statement over his wife three times: I __________ divorce
___________ my wife. 140
The proponents of the prevention doctrine teach that
the writing of the bill of divorce was intended to
cause the man to stop and think more about what he
was doing; thus a way of preventing hasty divorce.
But Yaron argues; "the Deuteronomic provision
would hardly serve to deter an angry husband intent
on divorcing his wife. The one thing he would want
at that moment is to be free of his wife for good.
130 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
Beside in biblical times the chief deterrent to divorce
was financial. Usually the husband forfeited the
dowry and sometimes had to make a divorce
payment as well." 141
Murry sees the defilement as a matter of "gross sexual immorality",
"gross abnormality", or "gross irregularity." 142 He struggles with the
meaning of the word defile because he labors to ensure that
remarriage as a whole is permissible:
It should be noted that it is only with reference to the
prohibited return to the first husband that the
defilement concerned is mentioned. The remarriage
on the part of the divorced woman is not expressly
stated to be defilement irrespective of return to the
first husband. For these considerations we are
required to exercise great caution before
stigmatizing the remarriage as adulterous.143
Murry wrestles with his New Testament problem—that remarriage
after divorce is adultery—when he attempts to define the word
defiled. Here he is drifting aimlessly, as do the other "adultery
group" scholars, but there is hope on the horizon. The total truth of
the (Deut. 24:1-4) comes to light when with R. Yaron who sows the
seed of thought which when combined with Isaksson's contribution of
the new view of consanguinity, the kinfolk nature of Adam and Eve
in marriage, and with the final touch of Wenham, and Heth are all
combined; then the secret of the (v. 4) text is unlocked. Isaksson's
initial contribution:
To be someone's bone and flesh as a common
expression to denote kinship (see, for example, Gen.
29:14; Jdg. 9:2; II Sam. 5:1, I Chr. 11:1). Very
likely it is used here also in allusion not only to the
fact that woman was created from Adam's rib but
also to the consequence of this, viz. that man and
woman are closely related to each other. If we
accept the translation of "rib", the text says, strictly
speaking, only that woman was of man's bone but
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
131
not of his flesh. When the man nevertheless says
shortly afterwards, on seeing the woman, that she is
bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, the
combination of these two words, "bone" and "flesh",
must have been chosen as a common expression for
kinship. What is to be explained in this context is,
of course, just how it could have come about that
man feels the attraction of forming a unity with his
wife more strongly than his affinity to his closest
relations—his father and his mother ...
With this background of the use of the word
to denote kinship, it is reasonable to translate it
[bone - flesh] in Gen. 2:24 also by the word
"relation", since in this context it is a question of
how the original relationship between man and
woman forms the explanation of man's strong desire
to cleave to his wife. Since man and woman were
originally of the same bone and flesh, a man leaves
his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, in
order that they may become one flesh, i.e., together
form a family. 144
Yaron, building on Isaksson saw in the defilement: the abomination
of incest:
It is submitted that Deuteronomy 24:1ff is to be
explained not in terms of adultery but by reference
to another sphere, namely to that of incest. This has
one immediate advantage; there is no need for
stigmatizing the (lawful) marriage of the divorcee as
an "implicit" crime. The second marriage puts the
wife finally beyond the reach of her first husband;
this—and nothing more—is expressed by her being
"defiled" (verse 4). More than that, the reference to
incest allows us, finally, also to arrive at the true
purpose of the law. Rules of incest, it is widely
held, are designed to protect the family and to
isolate, or insulate, existing socially approved
personal relationships from the disruptive influences
132 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
of sexual tension. Ordinarily, it is true, rules of
incest apply within the family group, and in this
point Deuteronomy 24:1ff is different; nevertheless
the basic aim is the same. We wish therefore to
submit that the prohibition expressed in verse 4 aims
at the protection of the second marriage. When the
divorcee has married another man, we have before
us the possibility of tension within the "triangle"
which has come into being. The first husband may
wish to get back his wife, having repented of
dismissing her, the wife may draw comparisons
between her two husbands unfavourable to the
second one, and may indulge in overtures disruptive
of the second marriage. Or, nothing of the kind may
have actually happened, but the second husband may
go through agonies of jealousy and apprehension,
making life a hell for the wife also. All these
possibilities are avoided once the reunion is
prevented. And it can be prevented effectively only
by outlawing it, by declaring it to 'evah, an
"abomination before the Lord." This, then, is the
very opposite of the approach taken by Matthew and
followed by the "adultery-group" of scholars. Not
only does Deuteronomy not object to the second
marriage, it takes effective steps to ensure its
stability and continuation. 145
Yaron viewed Deuteronomy as regulating the psychological
aspects of incest, but incest has a darker side. It was Gordon
Wenham who seized upon the opportunity offered by Yaron's insight,
and captured the analogy of Scripture. His initial thoughts were
expressed in his commentary on Leviticus published as part of The
International Commentary on the Old Testament. Wedham would
team up with William Heth and publish the marvelous scholarly
volume, Jesus and Divorce, and it would be in this book that the
bushel was finally removed from the light of (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).
As we watch Wenham open up the concepts of incest in Leviticus we
get a full view of the truth:
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
133
The Lord spoke to Moses as follows: Speak to the
Israelites and say to them, I am the Lord your God.
You must not behave as they do in the land of Egypt
where you have been living: and you must not
behave as they do in the land of Canaan, which I am
bringing you to; you must not follow their rules.
You must do my laws and keep my rules to follow
them; I am the Lord your God. You must keep my
rules and my laws; if a man does them, he will enjoy
life through them: I am the Lord.
(Wenham translation/Lev.18:1-5)
Wenham notes that the phrase, "I am the Lord your God", is almost
identical to the phrase which introduces the ten commandments in
(Ex. 20:2). 146 He points out Israel's familiarity with the heathen
customs, and notes that she is warned to avoid, and at the same time
she is taught what she was expected to imitate; quoting that standard
of Leviticus, "For I am the Lord your God: ye shall therefore sanctify
yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy (Lev. 11:44). 147
Wenham goes on to title verses 6-18 of Leviticus 18 the Forbidden
Unions:
No man among you may approach any of his close
relatives to have sexual intercourse: I am the Lord.
Do not have intercourse with your parents: she is
your mother: do not have intercourse with her. Do
not have intercourse with your father's wife; she is
one with your father. Do not have intercourse with
your sister, your father's daughter or your mother's
daughter, whether she belongs to local kindred or
distant kindred. Do not have intercourse with your
granddaughter, because she is one with you. Do not
have intercourse with your step-sister, if she belongs
to your father's kindred; she is your sister. Do not
have intercourse with your father's sister; she is your
father's relative. Do not have intercourse with your
mother's sister, because she is your mother's relative.
Do not uncover the nakedness of your uncle; you
shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt. Do not
134 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
have intercourse with your daughter-in-law; she is
your son's wife; do not have intercourse with her.
Do not have intercourse with your brother's wife;
she is one with your brother. Do not have
intercourse with a woman and her daughter; do not
take her son's daughter or her daughter's daughter to
have intercourse with her; they are relatives, it is
wickedness. Do not marry a woman as well as her
sister to distress her by having intercourse with her
while she is alive.
(Wenhan translation/ Lev. 18:6-18)
Here Wenham is quick to point out that "close relative" is literally
"flesh of his flesh." 148 Adam and Eve were a family. The family is
the building unit of mankind, and this unit was protected by the
prohibitions of certain sexual unions within the family. Wenham
makes this interesting comment on the forbidden degrees mentioned
in Leviticus 18:
There is one striking omission from this table.
Marriage with one's daughter is not proscribed. This
is probably because it was already accepted that
such a union was illicit (Gen. 19:30ff) [Lot and his
daughters]. It was forbidden both in the laws of
Hammurabi (LH 154) and in the Hittite laws (HL
195). In other words these regulations extend the
prohibition on incest already accepted in other parts
of the ancient Near East. 149
Wenham and Heth then go on to reach the summit of this
mountainous text:
Through her first marriage the woman entered into
the closest form of relationship with her husband;
divorce did not terminate this relationship; she still
counted as a very close relative. If a divorced
couple want to come together again, [the wife
having another marriage in the interim, my note] it
would be as bad as a man marrying his sister. That is
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
135
why it is described as 'an abomination before the
Lord' that 'causes the land to sin.' 150
In the final analysis this text might be translated: When a man
divorces his primary wife, he is permitted to marry again, except he
cannot remarry his former wife if she had remarried during the
interim of their separation. Thus we see a universal statement with an
exception clause—the divorcee may remarry with one exception: he
could not commit the abomination of incest. Fornication. The
marriage would have been a fornication-marriage. The marriage to
the first wife would be equal to a man marrying his own daughter.
Some Uncleanness; Some Indecency (èrwat dabar)
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and
it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,
because he hath found some uncleanness [some
indecency] in her; then let him write her a bill of
divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her
out of his house.
Deut. 24:1
Heth and Wenham are correct when they say, "The
interpretation of 'some indecency' in verse one is not really that
important in this argument." 151 They follow Abel Isaksson, R.
Yaron, and P.C. Craigie; the last of whom they quote:
... strictly speaking, the legislation relates only to
particular cases of remarriage; the protasis [vv.1-3]
contains incidental information about marriage and
divorce, but does not specifically legislate on those
matters. The verses do not legislate divorce, but
treat it as a practice already known ... 152
It is interesting to note that Abel Isaksson was the earliest pioneer to
begin beating this drum. Other modern writers such as John
MacArthur, J. Carl Laney, Paul E. Steele, Charles C. Ryrie, David
Atkinson, John Murry, and as mentioned Heth, and Wenham all see
the protasis in vv. 1-3 and the apodosis in v.4. Murry points out that
the Septuagint "adopts this construction" and older commentators like
136 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
Keil, Delitzsch, Calvin, Driver, and Reider all favor the position that
(Deut. 24:1-4) be interpreted as a prohibition of the specified
remarriage. 153
The unclean or indecent thing is of little consequence to this
text, or to the subject of divorce. Divorce was an accepted custom for
all the reasons previously presented. With this said, it remains
disconcerting that God's Law did not legislate creation-marriage. But
can any law legislate virtue to man who’s heart is deceitful and
desperately wicked, and is not creation-marriage virtuous. The law
came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ, (Jn. 1:17).
But for now let us complete the exposition of (Deut. 24:1-4).
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and
it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes,
because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then
let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in
her hand, and send her out of his house. Deut. 24:1
The "When" of this text has led some to believe that this was a
nuptial event, some revelation of the marriage bed. Although not
relating their comments to the wedding night, Chase and Edersheim
make the following comment:
In itself, therefore, the expression need not denote
more than something which is disgusting or
unwholesome; or even it would appear, some bodily
flaw which might cause disgust and aversion. 154
Alfred Edersheim alludes to the problem of
physical unpleasantness as being a cause of divorce:
"On the other hand, the wife could insist on being
divorced if her husband were a leper, or affected
with polypus. 155
Donald W. Shaner quotes Chase:
Chase agrees, however, that "some unseemly thing"
(Deut. 24:1) does not mean unchastitly (punishable
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
137
by death) but rather "some improper or indecent
behavior" or possibly some bodily flaw. 156
Regarding the timing of the "when" of the jealousy text we are sure:
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her and hate
her, and give occasions of speech against her, and
bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this
woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a
maid; then shall the father of the damsel, and her
mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the
damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the
gate.
Deut. 22:13-15
On the nuptial eve, during the act of copulation, the man
found reason to deplore his bride. During his attempt to consummate
the marriage the man found a barrier. He sensed that his wife, who
obviously claimed to be a virgin, was not. In his mind he believed he
married a harlot. Therefore at that instant, before the conclusion of
the wedding day, the marriage was in a serious crisis. Is it possible
that the "when" of (Deut. 24:1) is a reference to the marriage night?
Could it be that the man saw some bodily flaw, physical disease, or
other physical unpleasantness which caused him to loath the woman
he married—“she find no favor in his eyes.”
The text in Ephesians is appropriate here:
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of
water by the word; that he might present it to
himself a glorious church, not having spot, or
wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy
and without blemish.
Eph. 5:25-27
One final comment regarding the timing of the "when" of Deut. 24:1:
When a man hath taken a new wife, he shall not go
out to war, neither shall he be charged with any
138 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
business, but he shall be free at home one year, and
shall cheer up his wife whom he hath taken.
Deut. 24:5
Regarding the “When” of (v. 1) it is interesting that the
“When” of (v. 5) should be injected right in this place in the Bible.
Immediately after the so called “divorce text of the O.T. Deut 24. 1-4”
here in Deut. 24:5 we read another statement with the word when that
obviously means the wedding night. Also the idea of marriage in this
text is pregnant, i.e. great with love and joy.
Now let us go on to the meaning of the words some
uncleanness, some indecency, (èrwat dabar). Most commentators
believe the term is used to identify a myriad of minor offences
(certainly not adultery); offences that triggered divorce; the definition
of which was amplified by N.T. times where we find the school of
Rabbi Hillel permitting divorce for "any cause." Here Edersheim
comments:
We know that it included every kind of impropriety,
such as going about with loose hair, spinning in the
street, familiarly talking with men, ill-treating her
husband's parents in his presence, brawling, that is,
'speaking to her husband so loudly that the neighbors
could hear her in the adjoining house' (Chethub, vii.
6), a general bad reputation, or the discovery of
fraud before marriage." 157
Others include: poor cooking, no sons, or anything else that
displeased her husband.158 "They divorced them for the most
frivolous reasons: if she burnt his biscuits, or didn't season his food
right, or if he did not like her manners, or if she was a poor
housekeeper, even if he finds a woman more handsome than she." 159
Another mentions the "violation of the Law of Moses, or of Jewish
customs, such as the woman causing her husband to eat food on
which a tithe had not been paid; not setting apart the first dough;
appearing in public with disheveled hair; spinning and exposing her
arms in public; conversing indiscriminately with men; speaking
disrespectfully of her husband's parents in his presence; brawling in
the house; or spoiling a dish for him." 160 William J. Hopewell
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
139
agrees: "When Deuteronomy 24 was written, the Jewish people had
followed the terrible sin of the Egyptians in wife-swapping, putting
away their wives for the least cause, and had degenerated marriage to
a very primitive status."
There also existed another school of thought during N.T.
times, those of Rabbi Shammai: he believed that the indecency,
(èrwat dabar), was unchastity: adultery. Many N.T. commentators
place Jesus on the side of Shammai, earning them Edersheim's
censure: "It is a serious mistake on the part of commentators to set the
teaching of Christ on this subject by the side of that of Shammai."161
There is no question of what the Law taught regarding adultery. It
was not a matter of divorce. It was a capital crime: the death penalty.
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an
husband, then they shall both of them die, both the
man that lay with the woman, and the woman. So
shalt thou put away evil from Israel. Deut. 22:22
And the man who committeth adultery with another
man's wife, even he who committeth adultery with
his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress
shall surely be put to death.
Lev. 20:10
Edersheim exhorts NT commentators to remember the absolute
position of the Law concerning unchastity. By putting Jesus on the
side of Shammai they were misrepresenting the position of Jesus
regarding adultery and the law. Sexual intercourse on the part of the
woman with any man other than her husband was a capital crime: (1)
In the "law of jealousies", (Deut. 22:13) the woman was put to death
if she was found not to be a virgin on her wedding night; (2) If a
betrothed virgin was forced by another man to lay with him, and she
did not cry rape, both the man and the damsel were to be stoned to
death; (3) and the married adulteress and adulterer were to be put to
death. In the law adultery was always a capital crime. The èrwat
dabar could never mean adultery.
Edersheim goes on to say that èrwat dabar was translated: "a
matter of shame, [literally nakedness]." Regarding this idea Abel
Isaksson presents this interesting comment regarding èrwat dabar
(exposure or the nakedness of a thing):
140 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
This expression is usually interpreted to mean
something shameful or repulsive, without going into
any detail as to what it is that arouses the husband's
loathing for his wife. The expression occurs in
another passage in the O.T., viz. in Dt. 23.14. Verse
12 of chap. 23 mentions that there is to be a place
outside the camp at which all feces from the camp
are to be buried. This is to be done lest Yahweh,
when he walks through the camp, should find
(something exposed). It is clear that here dabar
stands for human excrement. It is accordingly an
euphemism. Yahweh must not see excrement lying
about exposed. The expression is similarly used as
an euphemism in Dt. 24:1 but here it does not stand
for human excrement but for the female pudendum
... [with reference the mention of the female token in
Dt.22] here means a cloth or garment of some kind,
as a covering for the female pudendum, which the
husband gave his wife at their marriage as a sign that
she was his (cf. for example, Ezek. 16:8: "And I
spread my skirt over you and covered your
nakedness", cf. Ru. 3.9). While Leviticus speaks of
uncovering the nakedness of a father (Lev. 18:7 f.,
20:11), Deuteronomy speaks of uncovering the skirt
of a father (23:1, 27:20).
Thus here also
Deuteronomy avoids directly mentioning the
pudendum.
In Dt. 24.1 it cannot be a mater of some
other man having lifted the covering and exposed
the wife's pudendum. This would have been
tantamount to adultery and in that case there could
be no question of a new marriage for the wife, since
both parties would be stoned to death.
Probably it is a question here of the wife
having exposed herself voluntarily or involuntarily.
All other exposure of his wife's pudendum than that
which the husband himself is responsible for arouses
his loathing. That the husband's improper exposure
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
141
of himself in the presence of any other person of the
opposite sex than the woman he was married to
aroused the wife's contempt is clear from the story
of how Michal despised David when in his dance
before the ark of the Lord he accidentally exposed
himself to the crowd (2 Sam. 6:12-20). Michal
interpreted David's involuntary exposure of himself
as a deliberate exposure to the servant maids. But it
is only licentious people (2 Sam. 6:20) who expose
themselves in this way. No modest Israelite woman
will do so. The wife will no longer find grace in her
husband's eyes when he discovers her exposing her
nakedness. This is also clear from Ezek. 23:18, in
which it is said that the man's soul turns away from
the wife who exposes her nakedness. 162
Isaksson goes on to support this view with the translation of LXX and
the conservative rabbis. With reference to his comment that (èrwat
dabar) was used as a euphemism for human excrement it should be
pointed out that the Englishman's Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance
of the Old Testament lists 51 references to the word dabar, and in 49
of those references it means nakedness. Therefore the two remaining
uses belong to Deut. 24 and here:
Thou shalt have a place outside the camp, whither
thou shalt go abroad; and thou shalt have a paddle
upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt
ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and
shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from
thee: for the Lord thy God walketh in the midst of
thy camp, to deliver thee and to give up thine
enemies before thee; therefore shall thy camp be
holy; that he see no unclean (dabar) thing in thee,
and turn away from thee.
Deut. 23:12-14
Kiel and Delitzsch comment:
For the camp was to be kept holy, because Jehovah
walked in the midst of it, in order that he might not
142 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
see the nakedness of a thing, i.e., anything to be
ashamed of in the people, and turn away from thee.
There was nothing shameful in the excrement itself;
but want of reverence, which the people would
display through not removing it, would offend the
Lord and drive him out of the camp of Israel. 163
Exposed excrement, the èrwat dabar the camp of Israel, would have
been the act which would have caused Jehovah to be offended, thus
driving him out of the camp. Likewise in Deut. 24:1 the èrwat dabar,
unclean thing, would have caused the wife to find no favor in the eyes
of her husband.
As we said, the meaning of èrwat dabar in the context of
Deut. 24:1 is of little consequence. Edersheim concludes:
And the Jewish law unquestionably allowed divorce
on almost any grounds; the difference being, not as
to what was lawful, but on what grounds a man
should put the Law in motion, and make use of the
absolute liberty which it accorded him. 164
One of the barriers against divorce in the OT was its financial
cost. Since a bride price, dowry, was essential to the contract, the
paramour had to literally count the cost of investing in and additional
wife. Perhaps the anticipation of wealth provoked the admonition to
Israel's future king, "Neither shall he multiply wives to himself,"
(Deut. 17:17). This remains a problem with divorced-remarried
polygamist in the West: they must pay alimony to their previous
wives, even though the law only permits one wife at a time. Multiple
wives is still expensive. Traditionally many believe that Moses was
erecting a barrier to the easy divorce of the day by requiring the man
to write a Bill of Divorce, but Heth and Wenham disagree:
Deuteronomy 24:1- 4 cannot be taken as evidence
that Moses sought to limit the husband's absolute
right to divorce his wife whenever he wished and for
whatever reason. Furthermore, this Deuteronomic
concession would hardly deter an angry husband
intent on divorcing his wife. When a man divorced
Why Does Moses Permit Polygamy and Divorce?
143
his wife, he would not want her to return to him.
Since the law accurately mirrors his feelings when
he is giving the divorce it can hardly have
discouraged him. Besides, ... probably the strongest
deterrent to divorce in Israel and all over the ancient
Near East was financial, since the husband had to
forfeit the dowry and may have been involved also
in other payments to his former wife. 165
These traditionalists also claim that the bill of divorce would have
listed the wives faults and along with the time required to write the
document would have in itself regulated hasty divorce.
On the ______ day of the week _______ in the
month ________ in the year _______ from the
beginning of the world, according to the common
computation in the province of ________, I,
_______ the son of _______ by whatever name I
may be known, of the town of ______ with the
entire consent of mind and without any constraint,
have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee,
________ daughter of _______ by whatever name
thou art called, of the town of _______ so as to be
free at thine own disposal, to marry whomsoever
thou pleasest, without hindrance from anyone, from
this day forever. Thou art therefore free for anyone
(who would marry thee). Let this be thy bill of
divorce from me, a writing of separation and
expulsion according to the law of Moses and Israel.
Witness_____________, the Son of __________________,
Witness_____________, the Son of __________________,
Obviously the woman's faults were not documented in all divorce
bills as evidenced here. To the contrary the bill leads one to believe
that divorce was rather simple, and if anything the bill made it a
greater reality and seems to ensure the idea of permanency. Men like
Jay Adams become ecstatic with the revelation that divorce was legal.
They then violently drive the O.T. concepts into the NT. Dwelling on
the word, divorce, as found in the bill he attempts to convey the
144 Chapter Four
Jesus’ Doctrine
message that the marriage was forever put asunder:" kerithuth >
karath> (1)to cut off; hew down; is used for hewing down timber (I
Kings 5:18); (2) amputation (Lev. 22:24); (3) decapitation (I Sam.
17:51). It indicates severing of what was once a living union." 166
The following statement is typical of Jay Adams: "Contrary to some
opinions, the concept of divorce is biblical." He goes on to say,
"Divorce, for some persons, under some circumstances is altogether
proper and not the object of God's hatred. 167
But as we have seen, regardless of those who like Adams
labor to declare that divorce is a tool to put marriage asunder, we
have proved that divorce is impotent in its determination to defeat
creation-marriage. Adams is incorrect, for he failed to regard the
main clause of the text, the abomination. A man could not return to
his divorced wife if she in fact had been married to another during the
interim of their separation. To do so would be an abomination. She
was kinfolk. She was through marriage equal to his sister, or his
daughter. The words to divorce, to cut off, to hew down, to amputate,
or to decapitate, contrary to Jay Adams do not, and cannot put
asunder the marriage bond which was created in the garden,
creation-marriage. The law could not separate what God hath joined
together; therefore the only thing the law could do was permit man to
legally separate from the woman he was bound to, permanently.
Thus the law permitted polygamy and divorce because the
heart of man was so totally evil that man could not conceive of a
marriage that was permanent. We read the words of the disciples—
who after walking with and becoming followers of Jesus for some
time—as proof that even believers cannot easily accept the doctrine
of permanency:
His disciples say unto him, If the case of a man be so
with his wife, it is not good to marry. Matt. 19:10
CHAPTER FIVE
Was God A Divorce´ ?
As we descend Mount Sinai we must wade through the
serpent filled swamps of the wilderness of Sin before we reach the
Promised Land. The next major mountain in the story of the Law
will find us in Galilee where Jesus defines the true nature of the law
in His Sermon of the Mount (to look with lust upon a woman is
adultery). Come along as we join with the band of Israel who carry
the cherished cargo, the marriage doctrine. This would be the
vehicle of the one who would preach that creation-marriage sermon
(Matt. 19). As we trek along, we will keep our eyes on the progress
of the vehicle of love. Will the serpent’s venom poison her?
As we stated earlier, Jehovah was married to Israel. The Law
was a marriage contract with His beloved lady. He loved her. In His
Song of Songs He composes her sonnet of sonnets, and pledges His
love, "Set me as a seal upon thine arm; for love is strong as death,"
(Song 8:6). His love was everlasting. We will see throughout this
treatise that as Israel deserted Him, He wooed her return, always
keeping the door of reconciliation open. His perfect love required
Him to discipline her, but He never forsook her. We shall see that
although Israel was the blessed chosen nation, and the wife of
Jehovah, she nevertheless was given to marital apostasy.
As God and Moses were planning salvation worship in the
heights of Sinai, Satan and Israel were committing fornication with a
golden calf at its base; in nakedness and sensual dance, the nation
worshiped in the customs of Egyptian idolatry.168 The fertility cult
would represent idolatry throughout their desert journey, and each
time the nation strays into idolatry she will experience fornication,
i.e., physical and spiritual fornication. Some may object to that
thought; they may change their minds as we proceed.
146 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
To The Plains of Moab
The news of Israel's Red Sea victory terrified Balak (name
meaning destroyer), a Moabite king, as he watches the nation of
Israel march across the Plains of Moab. Realizing his foe was the
Mighty God of the Jews and His prophet Moses, Balak chooses to
hire his own prophet, Balaam, whom he ordered to curse the children
of Israel. Initially Balaam failed, but then conceived a demonic
scheme to defile the children of God in hopes of requiring Jehovah to
curse His people. Balaam apparently knew that it was prohibitive for
Israel to have, i.e., to have as a wife, the daughters of Moab, or of any
other nation. Israel was under a special regulation of Jewishcreation-marriage, they were required to marry solely within the tribe
of Israel.
For thou shalt worship no other gods; for the Lord,
whose name is jealous, is a jealous God; lest thou
make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land,
and they go a whoring after their gods, and do
sacrifice unto their gods; and one call thee, and thou
eat of his sacrifice; and thou take of their daughters
unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after
their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after
their gods.
Ex. 34:14-16
With this idea as a concept of deception Balaam convinced Balak to
arrange for the daughters of Moab to play the harlot with the children
of Israel on its Plains of Moab. These women were experts in the sin
of licentiousness, and the prostitution of idolatry.
And the Israel abode in Shittim, and the people
began to commit whoredom with the daughters of
Moab. And they called the people unto the
sacrifices of their gods; and the people did eat, and
bowed down to their gods. And Israel joined
himself unto Baalpeor; and the anger of the Lord
was kindled against Israel. And the Lord said unto
Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang
Was God a Divorce´ ?
147
them up before the Lord against the sun, that the
fierce anger of the Lord may be turned away from
Israel.
Num. 25:1-4
The worship of Baalpeor was known to be attended by women and
virgins who prostituted themselves to this Moabitish Priapus 169, the
god of fertility. Archaeological discoveries have revealed that the
devotees of Baal practiced prostitution as a part of their worship.
This sordid practice was adopted by the Israelites.170 In the Book of
Revelation (2:14,15) it is revealed that this fornication was associated
with the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Although some see
Nicolaitanism as clerical hierarchy, others see it as a licentious sect
advocating complete and free love. So, the daughters of Moab
prepared their licentious worship which required the participation of
the standing men of Israel. The Moabite harlot decked her bed with
tapestry and perfumed it with aloes. She whispered her offer of
lust/love to the interested Jewish males who swarmed the desert floor.
The army of Israel soon fell into the idolatry of sexual and spiritual
fornication. This was the plan of Balaam to curse Israel. Revelation
states that it is Balaam who cast this stumbling block before the
children of Israel.
But to the surprise of Balaam, the children of Israel were not
consumed. Jehovah's anger was kindled and He began cursing the
people with a plague, and ordering Moses to "hang up" the heads of
those guilty of fornication. This hanging consisted in a form of
crucifixion which was practiced by the ancients. Keil and Delitzsch
suggest that a thousand men were crucified and the remainder
perished in the plague. But suddenly a miracle occurred which
averted this judgment of death. A mediator was raised in Israel who
interceded in behalf of God and the people. Phinehas, the son of the
high priest, upon seeing a young Israeli soldier return from Baalpeor
with a temple prostitute whom he took into his tent in the sight of
Moses and in the sight of all the congregation, became overcome with
a holy rage, took a javelin in his hand, then running into the tent he
executed both the man and the woman, thrusting them through with
his spear of death. This act was immediately honored by Jehovah
who turned away the plague of death; He praised Phinehas for his act
of atonement. Another assault on creation-marriage had failed.
148 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
The Promised Land
A beam of hope springs out of Jericho. Here in this heathen
fortress abides the harlot of the city, Rahab. The miracle of Jericho
was more than the fall of it's walls. It was the conversion of it's
harlot—the LXX translates the Hebrew word, harlot, as porne. The
fear of Jehovah and his captain, Joshua, drove the harlot, Rahab, to
her knees in repentance for her sinful life. She thrust her life into the
hands of this gallant soldier-savior and finds atonement for her soul.
She is born-again, converted from harlotry to become the great
grand-mother of the promised Seed. What a miracle. The power of
God's men is always salvation, and when that salvation is the
salvation of his enemies, Oh, so Great Salvation!
So with the opening of the Book of Joshua—Rahab’s
conversion—creation-marriage appeared healthy and promising,
unfortunately this was for a moment. By the time Israel reaches the
end of the Book of Judges we will find Israel at the lowest moral state
in their recorded history. Shortly after the death of Joshua we read:
And the children of Israel dwelt among the
Canaanites, Hittites, and Amorites, and Perizzites,
and Hivites, and Jebusites: and they took their
daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughter
to their sons, and served their gods. And the
children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,
and forgot the Lord their God, and served Baalim
and the groves.
Jud. 3:3-7
Although polygamy was practiced in Israel, as pointed out it was
limited by its cost, however it appears that this barrier and whatever
others that previously existed were now somewhat removed. It was
during this period were we find perhaps its holiest man practicing a
brand of polygamy which was previously without record. Gideon,
who otherwise had an impeccable and courageous life, had "many
wives." Of the exact number of wives, we do not know. We do know
he had seventy sons, with no mention of the number of daughters.
Perhaps the fate of these men was spawned by the sin of the father.
Beside the many wives Gideon had a concubine, and by this maid he
Was God a Divorce´ ?
149
begot a son, Abimelech. Keil and Delitzsch refer to him as Gideon's
bastard son.171 It was this son, Abimelech, who murdered all but one
of his brothers. Plurality of wives proves to be a plurality of trouble.
Sampson, the thirteenth judge, violated Israel's special
marriage code by choosing a bride over his fathers wish, and
choosing that woman from the ungodly Philistines. Fortunately,
Jehovah oversaw the entire affair and redeemed Sampson by
inflicting judgment upon Philistia via Sampson's anger. It would be
good if we could end the declension of Israel as recorded in Judges
right here. We cannot. Chapter nineteen opens a cesspool with a
reeking stench.
Here in (Jud.19) a traveling Levite, attempting to embrace
ritual purity, refuses to lodge in the Jebusite city of Jebus, choosing
rather to board in Gibeah, a city belonging to Benjamin. The Levite
was returning to his home in Mount Ephraim, with his wayward
concubine—concubinage was the invention of man's polygamist
nature. One might wonder as to what was his actual fear—what
would the Jebusites inflict upon him and his concubine. Perhaps he
feared that history might repeat itself, i.e., the impurity of the
Sodomite attack on Lot. Well, his worst fear of heathen violence was
realized in the home of his brethren. Finding lodging with an old
man, also of Mount Ephraim, he settled in for the night. The old man
washed his visitors feet and prepared a meal and drink for this friend
from his home state. But suddenly the peace is disturbed:
Now as they were making their hearts merry,
behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial,
[Sodomites], beset the house round about, and beat
at the door, and spoke to the master of the house, the
old man, saying, Bring forth the man who come into
thine house, that we may know him.
Jud. 19:22
To say the least, history repeated itself, as these worthless fellows,
sodomites, employed the very words of the men who attacked Lot. A
similar compromise is offered to these homosexuals, i.e., the old
man's daughter and the concubine were offered to appease their
desire. The record then reveals that in their anger the homosexuals
accepted the offer of the strange concubine, abusing her throughout
the night. By "knowing her", a reference to sexual knowledge, they
150 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
abused her until she died. In anger the Levite took a knife and
divided her dead body into twelve pieces, as they divided butchered
animals. He then sent a portion of this divided body to each of the
twelve tribes of Israel. The outcome was a civil war; the eleven tribes
of Israel battle Benjamin. The war was vicious against Benjamin as
Israel turned its rage on their brethren as they did upon the
Canaanites, destroying man, woman, child, and livestock. The tribe
was nearly annihilated. At the last moment Israel turned away its
wrath permitting a remnant to live. Creation-marriage in the tribe of
Benjamin was saved.
The Book of Samuel opens with another sad story. Here the
priest Eli fails as a father, his son's, Hophni and Phinehas, taught and
practiced heathen doctrine of the worst type. Although unsaved,
"they knew not the lord", they performed the sacrificial rites of the
temple. Not only desecrating their offerings by intruding into the
priests office, they offered unacceptable sacrifices to Jehovah. But
their most notorious act was their propagation of the doctrine of
temple prostitution. Hophni and Phinehas committed sexual acts with
the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the
congregation. Did they actually commit fornication in the compound
of the tabernacle?
During this period of gloom another ray of hope shines into
this dark valley, that of Ruth the Moabitess. This beautiful story is
actually heightened by the background of all this sin. This love story
is a picture poem of the day that the Son of God would offer his Holy
Life as a ransom for his friends; you and me. It is a poem of
marriage; the levirate marriage; the intricate emotions of the
Kinsman-Redeemer relationship. The delicate nature and timing of
this event is revealed in an air of suspense and intimacy. Isakkson
saw the private nature of "the covering of the nakedness"; here the
KJV translates this as, "the spreading of the skirt", (Ruth 3:9). Boaz
in his love spread his skirt over Ruth in claiming his bride. Jehovah
in his love affair with Israel did the same: "Now when I passed by
the, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and
I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness; yea, I sware
unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God,
and thou becamest mine", (Ezek. 16:8). Boaz, after redeeming Ruth,
marries her and brings her into the Hall of Creation-Marriage, the hall
of the grandmothers of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, (Matt. 1).
Was God a Divorce´ ?
151
The Kings of Israel
Putting the Israeli kings in charge of the creation-marriage
was asking the fox to guard the hen-house, nevertheless these kings
are in command of the vehicle. Initially all appeared well, as Saul was
satisfied with one wife and one concubine. But this was short lived.
David the holiest of all the Israeli kings begins a violation of
creation-marriage which would form the leading doctrine of the
future kings. The interesting impact of David's acts also affected his
children, all future Israeli children, and surprisingly the children of
God throughout two millennia of church history. David's sin with
Bathsheba has provided an apology for many thousands of marital
infidelity cases throughout history; a false apology. The real problem
began when the sons of Samuel departed from walking with the Lord:
And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he
made his sons judges over Israel. Now the name of
his first-born was Joel; and the name of his second,
Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. And his
sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after
lucre and took bribes, and perverted judgment. Then
all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together,
and came to Samuel unto Ramah, and said unto him,
Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy
ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the
nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they
said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed
unto the Lord.
I Sam. 8:1-3
Although the iniquity of Samuel's children was only an excuse for the
coveting Jewish nation, it nevertheless did open the door for the
demand for a king.
Israel was a theocracy. The position of another king, beside
the King of Kings, Jehovah, in the theocracy would create one special
problem. It was necessary to ensure a temporal sovereignty for the
king that would ensure the kings authority among the people.
Sovereignty would ensure the king the privilege of being the
administrator of the law; the Judge of the land. The problem with this
152 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
is that the king could not judge himself with the law. By requesting a
king the people willed that God provide them with a man that could
live—during his lifetime that is—above the sword of the law. The
law could not execute the king. Most people and most marriage
counselors do not take this into account when applying the outcome
of David's sin to the church today. Although Jehovah provided the
nation with a lifetime king sovereign, He did not do this for the good
of the people but in response to their murmuring; a thing which He
hates.
And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the
voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for
they have not rejected thee; but they have rejected
me, that I should not reign over them. I Sam. 8:7
God can be the only sovereign, for the sovereign must be righteous.
God reigns in righteousness:
The Lord reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the
Lord is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath
girded himself: the world also is established, that it
cannot be moved. Thy throne is established of old:
thou art from everlasting. The floods have lifted up,
O Lord, the floods have lifted up their voice; the
floods lift their waves. The Lord on high is mightier
than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty
waves of the sea. Thy testimonies are sure: holiness
becometh thine house, O Lord, forever. Psa. 93
For a thousand years Israel experienced the rule of the true sovereign,
Jehovah. The special problem of a human king would now affect
their understanding of sovereignty. The seasoning of their
understanding caused them to believe in a sovereign as a righteous
leader. Their faith in the government, a theocracy, was based on the
holiness of Jehovah. Israel failed to realize that an earthly sovereign
could not meet the standard in which they believed. They simply took
their understanding of the Holy Sovereign and applied it to sinful
man. This was impossible. Nevertheless these earthly kings were
given a temporal position above the law, and this led to their
Was God a Divorce´ ?
153
downfall.
As mentioned, Saul had one wife and a concubine. David on
the other hand had eight wives before he entered Jerusalem, however
after the victory over this city we are told, "David took him more
concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from
Hebron; and there were yet sons and daughters born to David", (II
Sam. 5:13). Keil and Delitzsch count nineteen sons and numerous
daughters being born to David.172 But the real tragedy of David is his
desire to take another man’s wife, and the violence in manifesting
that desire. Adultery. Probably the worlds most infamous recorded
act of adultery.
And it came to pass at eventide, that David arose
from his bed, and walked upon the roof he saw a
woman washing herself, and the woman was very
beautiful to look upon. And David sent and inquired
about the woman. And one said, Is not this
Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah,
the Hittite? And David sent messengers, and took
her. And she came in unto him, and he lay with her;
for she was purified from her uncleanness. And she
returned unto her house.
II Sam. 11:2-4
There appears to be two connected sins here. First, Bathsheba baths
her naked body in a location that permitted the king to see her
physical beauty. The act of a beautiful woman bathing is perhaps the
most difficult temptation for a man to resist—what woman ever
bathed in a location where a man could view her naked body? The
second sin is that of the king who permitted his eyes to be full of the
lusty beauty. David was no Job: "I made a covenant with my eyes.
Why then should I think upon a maid?" (Job 31:1). That look formed
into lust then conceived the sin of adultery, and deception which
brought forth death. The deception, a failed attempt to orchestrate a
lie which would have had Uriah raise a son which was not his own—
one of the greatest fears of all men—gave David one final evil
choice: murder Uriah. It almost appears that Uriah knew that
Bathsheba was with child of the king; the reason for his refusal to
return to his bed although the king made every arrangement to
persuade him. Whatever the reason we know God had intervened in
154 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
the heart of Uriah to prevent David in his lie. Even if Uriah knew the
truth, would he be able to prevail in convicting King David of
committing a capital crime; a crime punishable by death. Regardless,
God left David the choice to repent. David chose murder.
And when the wife of Uriah heard that Uriah, her
husband, was dead, she mourned for her husband.
And when the mourning was past, David sent and
fetched her to his house, and she became his wife,
and bore him a son. But the thing that David had
done displeased the Lord.
II Sam. 11
The marriage of Bathsheba to David is in stinging contrast to the
penalty of the law which required the funeral and burial of both. How
could this be reconciled with the law? That is a good question. Did
David conjecture that since polygamy was suffered to exist, and since
Bathsheba was now a widow that he had the right to marry her? This
is probably exactly what he reasoned; after all Bathsheba was now
truly a widow. This would make the marriage legal. He was not
convicted of adultery or murder, so he assumed he was legal; and as
we have said the king was the state and believed to be beyond the
reproach of the law: inculpable.
Nathan put a wrinkle in his rationality, by revealing that his
sin was found out. Then David finally reaches into his heart of hearts
and musters his last spark of honor. He cries out, "I have sinned
against the Lord." Like the publican's cry, "Oh, God be merciful to
me a sinner!" and went down to his house justified; here David was
told he would not die. He would go on to reveal his confession in
Psa. 32, and 51; there can remain no doubt of his full confession.
Against thee, and thee only, have I sinned, and done
this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justified
when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
Behold, I was shaped in iniquity and in sin did my
mother conceive me. Purge me with hyssop, and I
shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than
snow. Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all
mine iniquities. Create in me a clean heart, O God,
and renew a right spirit within me. Psa. 51:4ff
Was God a Divorce´ ?
155
Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not
iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. I
acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity
have I not hidden. I said, I will confess my
transgressions unto the Lord, and thou forgavest the
iniquity of my sin.
Psa. 32:2ff
The language of these Psalms reveal that David had knowledge of the
vicarious atonement of the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. David
found repentance and redemption—“not knowing that the goodness
of God leadeth thee to repentance.” Is it here that David was truly
born-again; I believe this is just what took place; David got saved; he
was born-again. There is, however, no record of Bathsheba's
penitence, nevertheless later we do see her in need of comfort. Their
son of adultery would die the death of the law for each of them; not
atoning for their souls, but for their lives.
The final element which weighed in David's forgiveness and
maintenance must be seen in the covenant of (II Sam. 7:12-16).
David was a chosen vessel. He was promised, unconditionally, a son
upon whom God would establish His kingdom forever. Although
David has other sons, he did not have any sons of promise. With the
death of his son by adultery, and with the pure confession of David, it
appears that God chose to expose his doctrine of Grace on this
penitent. The force of Grace is to prove where sin abounds Grace
will much more abound. So in other words, God was forgiving and
restoring David on the basis of his un-merited favor, Grace. He was
forgiving David because David truly repented. On that basis God
wanted to forgive David; and that He did. This is the element which
Satan just can't comprehend. It is beyond his capacity to think of
such a thought. He assumes that since his own judgment is
everlasting and forever final, that the Lord God must judge all beings
according to the standard which was applied to him. Therefore he
believed by trapping the soldiers of Israel to commit fornication and
adultery on the Plains of Moab, and by tempting David to commit
adultery, Satan could now require God to curse Israel and David
forever. But God wanted to forgive David because David believed in
the Lord Jesus Christ the only begotten Son of God. This is the total
idea of grace; and Satan is Satan because he is ignorant of the
156 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
Matchless Grace of God. David knew the Son of God:
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Psa. 110:1
And David comforted Bathsheba, his wife, and
went in unto her, and lay with her; and she bore a
son, and he called his name Solomon; and the Lord
loved him. And he sent word by the hand of Nathan,
the prophet; and he called his name Jedidiah
[beloved of the Lord], because of the Lord.
II Sam. 12:24,25
Several interesting comments can be gleaned from this text: (1)
Bathsheba is distressed by the death of the son of adultery; was she
distressed by her sin? (2) God blesses the widow/marriage with the
birth of a son, Solomon, [peaceful], (3) Jehovah has a special love for
the child and gives him a personal nickname, Jedidiah, [beloved of
the Lord], and (4) the special phrase, "because of the Lord." The
Lord is telling us that the entire David/Bathsheba restoration was a
matter of God doing something for His Beloved Son. He was freely
exercising his Grace because of the loving sacrifice of His only
begotten Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
With this said, let us not loose sight of the total corruption
and death which the worlds most published sin of adultery produced.
After all the Scripture cannot be broken, "Then when lust hath
conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth
forth death," (James 1:15). David committed adultery and murder
and was forgiven; God did not require the death penalty for the king.
But his murder and lust conceived more that his own sin; it also
produced sin in his family. Amnon, the elder son of David, saw a
chance to explore his lust and follow in his father’s footsteps—
children always learn the lessons our own acts teach them. Tamar,
Amnon's step-sister, was an especially beautiful virgin, and Amnon
had an un-natural lust/love for her. He was literally sick with lust
over his sister. With some help from a cousin, Amnon, manages to
lure Tamar to his bed. Here he viciously rapes the innocent and
lovely virgin, Tamar. Shortly thereafter Absalom avenges his sister,
Was God a Divorce´ ?
157
he kills Amnon. Absalom continues his rebellion against his father,
even threatening the throne. Forming a schism against the king he
enters Jerusalem, and defiles the king’s concubines. Setting up a tent
on the top of the king’s palace, he enters the tent of his father's
concubines in the sight of all Israel. In the sad end of Absalom, we
find him caught by the hair hanging in an oak, and struggling to get
free when he is found. Joab, the captain of David’s army, manages to
reach the site in time to thrust three staves through the heart of
Absolam. One act of adultery and now David is faced with three
murders, one rape, and the death of a child. Yes, David was forgiven,
but when lust is conceived it bringeth forth death. This is the law of
sin.
Now just how do we interpret David’s adultery/murder?
Consider the following facts: (1) David was a sovereign King
believed to be legally inculpable, (2) David fully repented, i.e., he
confessed his sin and discontinued his sin; and he was fully forgiven
of his sin. (3) He lived during a period that permitted polygamy—as
previously explained. (4) Bathsheba was now a widow and free to
take another husband. (5) Therefore David’s marriage to Bathsheba
was legitimate under those conditions. (5) This means that David’s
future intercourse with Bathsheba was not a continuous act of
adultery; under the permission of polygamy Bathsheba did not have
another living husband. Think this through. These elements are not
found in the act of remarriage today. In most cases of divorce and
remarriage that I have counseled both partners are alive and therefore
any remarriage for them is an act of continuous adultery—The act of
having sexual relations with another during the lifetime of a
previously married partner is adultery. No one is inculpable of the
law.
Modern adultery is no less subject to this law: "Be not
deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man soweth, that shall
he also reap," (Gal. 6:7). The real question facing modern man as we
will see later is: Since marriage is permanent until death do us part,
can a man have more than one living wife this side of death, during
the Christian age of monogamy? The age of Grace will reveal some
interesting facts supporting creation-marriage. "For the Law (of
divorce) was given by Moses, but Grace and Truth (permanencymarriage) came by Jesus Christ," (Jn.1:17). The day of Grace and
Truth would be radically different from the age of law. It had a
158 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
superior priest, and a superior doctrine. We should expect that its
teachings will sharply contrast the doctrines of Deuteronomy.
Modern adultery and remarriage may be dancing to the wrong pipe
and drummer. It must be noted that David committed adultery once.
Modern adultery-remarriage is either continuously illegal adultery or
what has been dressed as a false legal adultery—double-speak.
Augustine referred to this continuous adultery as "Adulterous
Marriage." 173 Adulterous-marriage is what this paper refers to as
legal adultery—which of course is being satirical.
But King Solomon loved many foreign women; in
addition to the daughters of Pharaoh, women of the
Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and
Hittites, of the nations concerning which the Lord
said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to
them, neither shall they come in unto you; for surely
they will turn away your heart after their gods.
Solomon clave unto these in love. And he had seven
hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred
concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.
I Kings 11:1-3
"Like father, like son." David's life of polygamy and adultery would
bear fruit in the beloved son, Solomon. Although these wives and
concubines were the common gifts, peace offerings of foreign kings,
nevertheless many of them were bedded by Solomon. We are clearly
told that Solomon sinned:
Did not Solomon, king of Israel, sin by these things?
Yet among many nations was their not a king like
him, who was beloved of his God, and God made
him king over all Israel; nevertheless, even him did
foreign women cause to sin.
Neh. 13:26
Solomon stresses the doctrine of creation-marriage with what might
be termed as a man drunk with marriage. But marriage was ordained
in the act of creation therefore even this outrageous indulgence of
polygamy could not destroy that which God had foreordained. Men
continue to labor to all possible extremes in their effort to up-root the
Was God a Divorce´ ?
159
creation doctrine. Some attempt to corrupt creation-marriage with
multiple divorce and multiple remarriage; others by homosexuality,
bestiality, trans-sexuality, and prostitution—all to no avail.
Did God Practice Divorce?
Jehovah was married to Israel, His beloved. We are clearly told that
He was her husband:
For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is
his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel;
The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For
the Lord hath called thee like a woman forsaken and
grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth [Mal. 2:14],
when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small
moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies
will I gather thee.
Isa. 54: 5-7
God married Israel on the foothills of Mount Sinai. In her youth she
was a slave in the kingdom of Pharaoh, where her infant sons were
persecuted. One of those infants, Moses, led the children of Israel to
the altar where she married Jehovah; she became one with Him—a
type of creation-marriage. Later Israel’s conduct as a wife became
disgraceful, and illegal. The law set certain conditions on the
marriage relationship: (1) Adultery; a capital crime, (2) Certain acts
could result in divorce with a prohibition to any future reconciliation
of the original marriage. Israel committed adultery and those certain
acts; yet, Jehovah never put her asunder. His perfect love required
Him to chasten her, but he never put her asunder. He created the
institution of creation-marriage and He was bound to her forever, by
choice. Let us follow this marriage.
The Queen of Sheba did not believe all she heard of
Solomon’s splendor, so she decided to go to Jerusalem, and after
viewing this glorious kingdom she exclaims: "I believed not the
words until I came, and mine eyes had seen it; and, behold, the half
was not told me: thy wisdom and prosperity exceedeth the fame
which I heard." But this glory was short lived. As this queen was in
awe of the kingdom, Solomon was in awe of his wives. Bowing to
160 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
their every desire; bowing to their gods. Solomon joined in the
corruption of the gods of his wives: Ashtoreth, Milcom, Chemosh,
and Molech. The worship of the former included licentious ritual
prostitution and to the latter was attributed the debauchery of burning
children alive in sacrifice. The apostasy of Solomon provoked the
anger of Jehovah:
And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his
heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, who
had appeared unto him twice ... Wherefore the Lord
said ... I will surely rend the kingdom away from
thee, and will give it to thy servant.
Notwithstanding, in thy days I will not do it, for
David thy father's sake: but I will rend it out of the
hand of thy son. Howbeit, I will give one tribe to
thy son, for David my servant's sake, and for
Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen. I Kings 11:9ff
Shortly after Solomon's death his kingdom was divided. Rebelling
against Rehoboram, Solomon's son the king, the people elected
Jeroboam, the servant of Solomon, to be their king. Rehoboram was
able to maintain the city of Jerusalem as his base, while Jeroboam
headed north down and away from the promised city. Fearing that by
returning up to Jerusalem, Israel would return to Jehovah, Jeroboam
desperately invents a cult religion for Israel:
Whereupon the king took counsel, and made two
calves of gold, and said unto them, It is too much for
you to go up to Jerusalem; behold thy gods, O Israel,
which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And
he set the one in Bethel, and the other put he in Dan.
And this thing became a sin; for the people went to
worship before the one, even unto Dan. And he
made an use of high places, and made priests of the
lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of
Levi.
I Kings 12
This apostasy, the adultery of idolatry, would continue for about two
centuries before Israel, the Northern Kingdom, would be brought into
Was God a Divorce´ ?
161
captivity and slavery by the Assyrian nation. During this time,
Rehoboam, the son of Solomon was king of Judah, the Southern
Kingdom. Although a step above their northern brethren, they lasted
350 years before apostasy, the adultery of idolatry, caused their
collapse and captivity, being captured and imprisoned by mighty
Babylon. The prophets continually refer to the religious apostasy of
Israel and Judah as spiritual adultery and spiritual fornication.
Physical adultery was punishable by death. The Lord God was
married to the twelve tribes of Israel: "Turn, O backsliding children,
saith the Lord; for I am married unto you; and I will take you one of a
city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion," (Jer. 3:14). It
must be remembered that although Israel and Judah committed many
crimes against their marriage with Jehovah, He nevertheless was ever
faithful to them. Malachi speaks firmly regarding Jehovah God’s
commitment to the nation as their Husband:
For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons
of Jacob are not consumed.
Mal. 3:6
Both Israel and Judah had committed the capital crime of
adultery. Both kingdoms could have been annihilated from the earth
for their sin, but God makes no mention of their utter destruction. He
does however use a few metaphors to describe His anger. The
prophets, as with Jesus, were masters at the use of figurative
language, metaphors, similes, hyperboles, and other figures of
speech. Hebrew poetry is based on comparative thoughts rather than
rhyme: "The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want ... Yea, though I
walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil."
Here in the middle of this viscous apostasy, Jehovah chooses a few
appropriate metaphors. None of which threaten Israel, or Judah with
total separation (divorce as understood by man), or death; to which
they deserved.
They say, if a man put away his wife, and she go
from him, and become another man's, shall he return
unto her again? Shall not the land be greatly
polluted? But thou has played the harlot with many
lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord. Jer.3:1
162 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
The illustration here is that Israel was put away (divorced) by her
captivity, figuratively given a bill of divorce. She had committed
adultery with a foreign god, and God put her away. She then went
and became the wife of another god, another man. Then in reference
to (Deut 24:1-4) Jehovah annuls the "abomination" and pleads for the
return of His harlot wife. We see here strong evidence that the
thought (divorce-remarriage) of (Deut. 24:1-4) was not God's will.
God says, "they say," indicating that He did not say it. But the
primary concern of the Jeremiah verse is the fact that God accused
the nation of committing adultery, this was certainly not the some
uncleanness, or some indecency or (Deut. 24:1). Adultery was a
capital crime. In the Jeremiah text adultery is only a matter of
divorce. This text certainly does not refer to a direct translation of the
law. It is an illustration of the position of Israel in the eyes of God at
this time, a metaphor. A metaphor cannot be translated literally: "It is
raining cats and dogs"; when interpreting this metaphor we must
translate the entire context of the metaphor as one. In other words we
cannot say, "It is raining cats and rain." The divorce for adultery
metaphor was symbolic language of the captivity of Israel.
Captivity, divorce, was the judgment of Israel for adultery. To add an
additional rebuke to those who see a literal application of the (Deut.
24:1-4) text in (Jer. 3:1) God goes on to says, even though you have
been defiled by another during our separation, return to me. In (Jer.
3:1) the abomination is annulled. Their reunion was holiness. Why?
In spite of Israel's adultery and harlotry, and in spite of her symbolic
divorce, she was married to Jehovah in creation-marriage.
The sword of the law is absent from this text. The adulterer
and adulteress were not executed, but were graciously offered a
pardon. The text is bursting with mercy, and reason: Jehovah argues
that He is married to Israel. He is the faithful Husband. And this
marriage is a creation-marriage. Jeremiah labors to portray the first
love of Israel, her apostasy, her metaphorical divorce, and her offer of
reconciliation:
Go and cry in the hearing of Jerusalem, saying, Thus
saith the Lord, I remember thee, the kindness of thy
youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou
wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was
not sown. Israel was holiness unto the Lord, and the
Was God a Divorce´ ?
163
first fruits of his increase; all that devour him shall
offend; evil shall come upon them, saith the Lord.
Hear ye the word of the lord, O house of Jacob, and
all the families of the house of Israel.
Jer. 2:2-4
The allusion here is to the betrothal period when Israel was rescued
from the armies of Pharaoh and was romanced by Jehovah God on
the sands of the wilderness. She there became His wife.
Thus saith the Lord, What iniquity have your fathers
found in me, that they are gone far from me, and
have walked after vanity, and are become vain?
Neither said they, Where is the Lord who brought us
up out of the land of Egypt, who led us through the
wilderness, through a land of deserts and of pits,
through a land of drought, and of the shadow of
death, through a land that no man passed through,
and where no man dwelt? And I brought you into a
plentiful country, to eat its fruit and its goodness, but
when ye entered, ye defiled my land, and made mine
heritage an abomination. The priests said not,
Where is the Lord? And they that handle the law
knew me not. The rulers also transgressed against
me, and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and
walked after things that do not profit.
Jer. 2:5-8
Here the Northern Kingdom is indicted for adultery, i.e., their
apostasy into the idolatry of Baalism. The prophesying by Baal was
akin to being married to another.
Wherefore, I will yet plead with you, saith the Lord,
and with your children's children will I plead. For
pass over the coasts of Kittim, and see; and send
unto Kedar, and consider diligently, and see if there
be such a thing. Hath a nation changed their gods,
which are yet no gods? But my people have
changed their glory for that which doth not profit.
Be appalled, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly
afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the Lord. For my
164 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
people have committed two evils: they have
forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and
hewed out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no
water.
Jer. 2:9-13
The forsaking of God by Israel, the fountain of living waters, and her
adultery were acts of marital violence, but her marrying Baal, the
hewed out (man-made) cistern, was a second and more violent evil.
This act under the law would have prohibited any further
reconciliation. She became the wife of another after a divorce from
her first husband. Thus according to the law she was now defiled to
her original Husband, Jehovah God:
Is Israel a servant? Is he a home-born slave? Why
is he spoiled? The young lions roared upon him, and
yelled, and they made his land waste; his cities are
burned without inhabitant. Also the children of
Memphis and Tahpanhes have broken the crown of
thy head. Hast thou not procured this unto thyself,
in that thou hast forsaken the Lord, thy God, when
he led thee by the way? And now what hast thou to
do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of
Shilhor? Or what hast thou to do in the way of
Assyria, to drink the waters of the river? Thine own
wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings
shall reprove thee; know, therefore, and see that it is
an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the
Lord, thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith
the Lord God of hosts.
Jer. 2:14-19
The desolation of Israel is a direct reference to a type of divorce. It
was a divorce which was self inflicted. God permitted her to exercise
her free evil will. He permitted the divorce for which she sued. He
gave her the bill of divorce, she requested. In this sense God never
divorced her.
For of old I have broken thy yoke, and burst thy
bands; and thou saidst, I will not transgress, when
upon every high hill and under every green tree thou
Was God a Divorce´ ?
165
wanderest, playing the harlot. Yet I had planted thee
a noble vine, wholly a right seed. How, then art
thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange
vine unto me, saith the Lord God. How canst thou
say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim?
See thy way in the valley, know what thou hast
done; thou art a swift dromedary traversing her
ways, a wild ass used to the wilderness that snuffeth
up the wind at her pleasure; in her occasion who can
turn her away? All they that seek her will not weary
themselves; in her month they shall find her.
Withhold thy foot from being unshod and thy throat
from thirst; but thou saidst, There is no hope. No;
for I have loved strangers, and after them will I go.
As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the
house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their
princes, and their priests, and their prophets, Saying
to a tree, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou
hast brought me forth; for they have turned their
back unto me, and not their face, but in the time of
their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us. But
where are thy gods that thou hast made? Let them
arise, if they trouble; for according to the number of
thy cities are thy gods, O Judah. Why will ye plead
with me? Ye all have transgressed against me, saith
the Lord. In vain have I smitten your children; they
received no correction. Your own sword hath
devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion.
Jer. 2:20-30
The nation has been plainly caught in the bed of adultery, and that
with her lover, Baalim. Furthermore, she claims that her adulterous
marriage is not “polluted.” In her imagination her adultery was a
holy religious experience. But God tells her, "For though thou wash
thee with lye, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked
before me, saith the Lord God.
O generation, see the word of the Lord. Have I
been a wilderness unto Israel? A land of darkness?
166 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
Why do my people say, We are lords; we will come
no more unto thee? Can a maid forget her
ornaments, or a bride her attire? Yet my people
have forgotten me days without number. Why
trimmest thou thy way to seek love? Therefore hast
thou also taught the wicked ones thy ways. Also in
thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor
innocents; I have not found it by secret search, but
upon all these. Yet thou sayest, Because I am
innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me.
Behold, I will plead with thee, because thou sayest, I
have not sinned. Why gaddest thou about so much
to change thy way? Thou also wast ashamed of
Assyria. Yea, thou shalt go forth from him, and thine
hands upon thine head; for the Lord hath rejected thy
confidences, and thou shalt not prosper in them.
Jer. 2:31-37
Her apostasy was preceded by fornication, she trimmed her ways to
"seek love." She left her wedding gown behind.
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go
from him, and become another man's, shall he return
unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly
polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many
lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord. Lift
up thine eyes unto the high places, and see where
thou hast not been lain with. In the ways hast thou
sat for them, as the Arabian in the wilderness; and
thou hast polluted the land with thy harlotry and
with thy wickedness. Therefore, the showers have
been withheld, and there hath been no latter rain;
and thou refusedst to be ashamed. Wilt thou not
from this time cry unto me, My Father, thou art the
guide of my youth? [see Mal. 2:14 "wife of thy
youth"] Will he reserve his anger forever? Will he
keep it to the end? Behold, thou hast spoken and
done evil things as thou couldest. Jer. 3:1-6
Was God a Divorce´ ?
167
Israel had been metaphorically divorced and remarried. Now God
says, "They say", regarding the abomination of (Deut. 24:1-4). It was
not his will. The "They" of the verse refers to Moses as the author of
the permissive section of the law. For Israel in her marriage to
Jehovah, the abomination did not exist. It did not exist because her
marriage was eternal; it was permanent creation-marriage. He was
the Guide of her youth; in her youth she was his bride.
The Lord said also unto me in the days of Josiah, the
king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel
hath done? She is gone up upon every green tree,
and there hath played the harlot. And I said, after
she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me.
But she returned not. And her treacherous sister,
Judah, saw it. And I saw, when for all the causes
whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had
put her away, and given her a bill of divorce, yet her
treacherous sister, Judah, feared not, but went and
played the harlot also. And it came to pass through
the lightness of her harlotry, that she defiled the
land, and committed adultery with stones and with
trees. And yet for all this her treacherous sister,
Judah, hath not turned unto me with her whole heart,
but feignedly, saith the Lord. And the Lord said
unto me, The backsliding Israel hath justified herself
more than treacherous Judah.
Jer. 3: 6-11
Judah, the southern kingdom, is indicted for adultery. The entire
nation is equally guilty of capital crimes and of those "certain acts"
which caused her to be metaphorically divorced, entering into further
liaisons that prohibited her return to her husband, Jehovah (Deut. 24:4
the abomination). It is said here that God, "had put her away, and
given her a bill of divorce." Her putting away, and bill of divorce
was her captivity and destruction by Assyria. These were temporary
chastenings, not permanent judgments as the law permitted under
divorce. Had God actually wrote a bill of divorcement He would
have had no further authority over His wife. She would have been
permitted to be wife of another. But she was never so permitted. This
is evidence that Jehovah never endorsed (Deut. 24:1-4) as a legal
168 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
divorce procedure.
Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and
say, Return thou backsliding Israel, saith the Lord,
and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for
I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep
anger forever. Only acknowledge thine iniquity, that
thou hast transgressed against the Lord, thy God,
and hast scattered thy ways to the strangers under
every green tree, and ye have not obeyed my voice,
saith the Lord. Turn, O backsliding children, saith
the Lord; for I am married unto you.
Jer. 3:12-14a
Her acts of adultery and uncleanness reaped neither divorce,
execution, nor the abomination of (Deut. 24:1-4). Jehovah, her
Husband, pleaded for her return. After her adultery, and uncleanness,
Jehovah speaks, "I am married unto you." The metaphor of divorce
is only a gentle rebuke to the temporary captivity with which He
chastised His beloved wife, Israel. God did not practice divorce at
all. God was not a divorce´. He was forever married to Israel.
Some may argue, that since God employs a metaphor of
divorce in which he actually offers Israel a "bill of divorce", then
divorce is not a sin, because God certainly cannot sin. Please
remember, as we explained, divorce was the practice of men; men
with hard sinful hearts. A custom which was known and accepted by
sinful man as a right which he attributed to his concept of self
sovereignty. Jehovah, by employing the custom of divorce as a
metaphor, was merely using a teaching tool. As a master of
pedagogy, He was taking the people from the known to the unknown.
Because God used a teaching metaphor, does not mean that He
literally committed the metaphor. As we said, Israel had committed
spiritual adultery. The metaphor of adultery would be complete only
with the death of Israel. God did not subject Israel to the law, and
stone them to death. Neither did he literally divorce his beloved wife,
His companion.
Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I
am married unto you.
Jer.3:14
Was God a Divorce´ ?
169
Mr. Jay E. Adams, in his most unusual style, has come on
with the doctrine that God practiced divorce and therefore Christians
have the right to practice divorce within the limits of God's use. "If
God Himself became involved in divorce proceedings with Israel, it
is surely wrong to condemn any and all divorce out of hand." 174
Edward G. Dobson, parrots Adam’s:
If the act of divorce is sin, then why would God
utilize this as an analogy of His relationship to
Israel? Further, why would God threaten Israel with
a bill of divorcement? Since God cannot sin, then
the answer to these questions is that the act of
divorce is not an act of sin. 175
It is remarkable that these writers deny God the use of the metaphor,
where even secular writers could see the possibility of permitting
such use. Don't we all use figures of speech while not endorsing their
picture. What parent hasn't said something to the effect to their child,
"I'll skin you alive." Do we accuse these parents of threatening to
flail their children. Although more conservative, John MacArthur
also follows their school of thought:
So even God divorced. And that's important,
because God does not do things that aren't right.
God doesn't give us living illustrations of His own
behavior that we can't follow. That's why it grieves
me that people will say, There are no grounds for
divorce 176
Is MacArthur sure of this? A careful study will reveal that God is not
divorced. And that is important. There are no grounds for divorce of
creation-marriage, which is the foundation of the covenant marriage
of God with Israel. MacArthur goes on to accuse God of divorce:
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah." Do you know what He's
going to do? He's going to get married again—to
170 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
Israel. Verse 32 says, "Not according to the
covenant that I made with their father in the day that
I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land
of Egypt, which, my covenant, they broke, although
I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord." Now
that affirms that God was no longer their husband,
doesn't it? But He will remarry them and make a
new covenant. 177
No, this does not affirm that God was no longer the Husband of
Israel. The metaphor does not literally mean that the event was a
historical fact. Jehovah told us that "my covenant, they broke,
although I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord." His use of
divorce, putting away, and the bill of divorce were metaphors
intended to chasten Israel to re-think there waywardness. The idea
that God divorced and remarried Israel after she was the wife of
another is to accuse God of committing the sin of abomination (Deut.
24:1-4). To defend this conclusion with pseudo scholarship is
unfortunate. The idea that God divorced Israel and remarried her is
totally unacceptable. Keil and Delitzsch agree, making the following
comment:
In this view Jerome translates the reception anew of
the people being given under the figure of a new
marriage. This acceptation is not suitable to the
[text], for this, even if taken prophetically, cannot
refer to a renewal of marriage which is to take place
in the future. The [text] can be referred only to the
marriage of Israel at the conclusion of the covenant
on Sinai, and must be translated accordingly: I am
your husband, or: I have wedded you to me. This is
demanded by the [text] for the summons to repent
cannot give as its motive some future act of God, but
must point to that covenant relationship founded in
the past, which, though suspended for a time, was
not wholly broken up. 178
The use of the metaphor is seen again in the vision of Isaiah,
and the life of Hosea:
Was God a Divorce´ ?
171
Thus saith the Lord: Where is the bill of your
mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? Or
which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you?
Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves,
and for your transgressions is your mother put away.
Isa. 50:1
The only bill of divorce was the captivity of Israel and Judah which
of course, God did not write. They could not produce a bill of
divorce, Jehovah never divorced His bride. Did God literally sell
Israel to their creditors? No. The nation sold herself, figuratively, to
her creditors: Assyria, and Babylon. Did God literally divorce Israel?
No. The nation divorced herself from Jehovah through her
transgressions.
Jehovah God “temporarily” suspended his
everlasting covenant with Israel.
Hosea carried the divorce metaphor into a literal illustration,
and that of his own married life:
The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea.
And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a
wife of harlotry and children of harlotry; for the land
hath committed great harlotry, departing from the
Lord. So he went and took Gomer... who conceived
and bore him a son, Jezreel for yet a little while, and
I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of
Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the
house of Israel. And she conceived again, and bore a
daughter, Lohruhamah ... Now when she had
weaned Loruhamah, she conceived, and bore a son,
Loammi.
Hosea 1:1-9
The prophet was to make the divorce metaphor a literal visual aid.
Before the days of photography, Jehovah's prophets often used their
lives as pictures when preaching God's message. Some may argue
whether the marriage of the prophet with an adulterous woman,
which is twice commanded by God, is to be regarded as a marriage
that was actually consummated, or merely as an internal occurrence,
172 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
or as a parabolical representation179, but this writer believes that the
powerful force of a prophet who literally lives with a wife of harlotry
serves as the perfect picture of Israel, the harlot wife of Jehovah.
This is an overwhelming picture of the truth of God's unthinkable
marriage to Israel; as was Hosea’s marriage to Gomer. The simple
language of the text supports the actual consummation view which
seems a fitting message from Jehovah to his sinful wife. Further the
children of that marriage certainly appear to be literally born, and are
given names which suggest judgment for the purpose of conveying
God's message: Jezreel, (scattered), the judgment of the northern
kingdom; Loruhamah, (unpitied), no mercy to the northern kingdom;
Loammi, (not my people), you are not my people, and I will not be
your God.
The one unmistakable theme throughout the book of Hosea is
that this adulterous wife in not judged; divorced or put to death. She
is not totally destroyed. She is not stoned to death. But she is wooed
as a virgin. Chapter one begins by portraying Israel in the wife of the
prophet as a harlot and her offspring as children of judgment.
Remarkably it ends with a beautiful scene of complete restoration:
Yet, the number of the children of Israel shall be like
the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor
numbered; and it shall come to pass that, in the place
where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people,
there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of
the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and
the children of Israel be gathered together, and
appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up
out of the land; for great shall be the day of Jezreel.
Hosea 1:10,11
It must be pointed out that although the judgment of Israel would be
severe, as noted in the meaning of the names of Hosea's children,
there is also an unconditional promise of complete and full restoration
for both the northern kingdom, Israel, and the southern kingdom,
Judah. The putting away in the divorce metaphor was figurative for a
temporary chastisement of Ephraim, the northern kingdom, and her
adulterous sister Judah. It certainly was not the finality of legal
marital divorce as practiced by the ancients, the west, and the church
Was God a Divorce´ ?
173
today. Alexander MacLaren makes these fitting comments regarding
the chastening of Israel found in Hosea:
I must begin by explaining what, in my judgment,
this text does not mean. First, it is not what it is
often taken to be, a threatening of God's abandoning
of the idolatrous nation ... the very fact Hosea was
prophesying to call Ephraim from his sin showed
that God had not let Ephraim alone, but was wooing
him by His prophet, and seeking to win him back by
the words of his mouth. God was doing all that He
could do, rising early and sending His messenger
and calling to Ephraim: 'Turn ye! Turn ye! Why will
ye die?' For Hosea, in the very act of pleading with
Israel on God's behalf, to have declared that God had
abandoned it, and ceased to plead, would have been
a palpable absurdity and contradiction. 180
Chapter two begins with Hosea speaking to Gomer of divorce
and chastisement. As we shall see this was only a metaphoric
divorce, a temporary punishment.
Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my
wife, neither am I her husband. Let her, therefore,
put away her harlotry out of her sight, and her
adulteries from between her breasts. Hosea 2:2
In (v. 19) the prophet then begins to drift into a direct discourse with
Israel, as is customary of biblical prophecy. Jehovah becomes
completely personified in the spirit of the prophet, and Jehovah
speaks to His nation. In a spirit of jealousy God, declaring that
although the nation had apostatized to the point of calling Jehovah,
Baali, they would be restored and call him Ishi, my husband. And
then he drifts into a beautiful song which Jehovah sings to His lady,
speaking to her with the language of love:
And I will betroth [woo as a virgin] thee unto me
forever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in
righteousness, and in justice, and in loving-kindness,
174 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in
faithfulness; and thou shalt know the Lord. And it
shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the
Lord, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the
earth; And the earth shall hear the grain, and the
wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. And I
will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have
mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I
will say to them who were not my people, Thou art
my people, and they shall say, Thou art my God.
Hosea 2:19ff
The chastening, putting away of Ephraim, was certainly not divorce.
Keil and Delitzsch agree:
But as God the Lord has no pleasure in the death of
the sinner, but that he should turn and live, He
would not exterminate the rebellious tribes [Israel]
of the people of His possession from the earth, or put
them away for ever from His face, but would
humble them deeply by severe and long-continued
chastisement... Consequently, even in the book of
Hosea, promises go side by side with threatenings
and announcements of punishment, and that not
merely as the general hope of better days, kept
continually before the corrected nation by the allpitying love of Jehovah, which forgives even
faithlessness, and seeks out that which has gone
astray, but in the form of a very distinct
announcement of the eventual restoration of the
nation, when corrected by punishment, and returning
in sorrow and repentance to the Lord it’s God, and to
David it’s king (ch. iii.5)—an announcement
founded upon the inviolable character of the divine
covenant of grace, and rising up to the thought that
the Lord will also redeem from hell and save from
death, yea, will destroy both death and hell (ch.
xiii.14). Because Jehovah had married Israel in His
covenant of grace, but Israel, like an unfaithful wife,
Was God a Divorce´ ?
175
had broken the covenant with its God, and gone a
whoring after idols, God, by virtue of the holiness of
His love, must punish its unfaithfulness and
apostasy. His love, however, would not destroy, but
would save that which was lost. This love bursts out
in the flame of holy wrath, which burns in all the
threatening and reproachful addresses of Hosea. 181
In chapter three Hosea is asked to take the wife back whom he had
divorced and to love her in spite of the fact that she had committed
adultery:
Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman
beloved of her friend, yet and adulteress, according
to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel,
who look to other gods and love cakes of raisins.
Hos. 3:1
Initially Hosea secretly supplies Gomer will all her needs. She
unwittingly believes she is being sponsored by her lovers. Then
Hosea removes his support, leaving her to be caught in a society
without any wealth but the flesh of her life. She is reduced to a slave
and is auctioned for a price. As Jehovah remained the husband of
Israel even though she committed adultery, so Hosea purchases her
from the auction block and restores Gomer to the full status of a
beloved wife:
So, I bought [redeemed] her for myself for fifteen
pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an
half homer of barley. And I said unto her, Thou
shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt not play the
harlot, and thou shalt not be for another man; so will
I also be for thee.
Hos. 3:2-3
The book then drifts back to a full dissertation between Jehovah and
Israel. The tender and amiable language of the book speaks of the
love Jehovah has for his adulterous wife. A wife who did not deserve
His affection, but as Keil and Delitzsch comment, "by pointing out
the unfaithfulness which Israel has displayed towards its God from
176 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
the very earliest times, the prophet shows that it has deserved nothing
but destruction from off the face of the earth." 182 But to the contrary,
God's love faileth not:
I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I
will redeem them from death. O death, I will be thy
plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction;
repentance shall be hidden from my eyes.
Hosea 13:14
I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely;
for mine anger is turned away from him. I will be as
the dew unto Israel; he shall grow like the lily, and
cast forth his roots like Lebanon. His branches shall
spread, and his beauty shall be like the olive tree,
and his fragrance like Lebanon. Hosea 14:4-6
Hosea did not practice divorce. God did not practice divorce. It does
appear that Hosea put Gomer away in the beginning of chapter two:
"Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah.
Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I
her husband." In chapter three however he immediately takes her
back on the command of God: "Then saith the Lord unto me, go yet,
love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to
the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel... So, I bought
[redeemed] her for myself for fifteen pieces of silver." God's divorce
scenario certainly did not match the scenario of (Deut. 24), and it did
not match the judgment of (Deut. 22:22), i.e., death for adultery. But
putting that aside for a moment and conceding that the metaphor met
the divorce criteria, we can say that: Yes, Hosea was metaphorically
divorced. And metaphorically it rains cats and dogs. But please dear
reader don't teach anyone that use of the metaphor means that cats
and dogs fall from the sky, or that you are going to report the woman
down the street to the police because she said she was going to “skin
her children alive.” As a loving mother metaphorically skins her
children alive, so God metaphorically divorced his beloved wife. But
to accuse Him of committing literal divorce is to accuse the loving
mother of murder because she metaphorically skinned her children
alive. Hosea was not a divorce´. God was not a divorce´ : "For the
Was God a Divorce´ ?
177
Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away [divorce]"
(Mal. 2:16). Metaphors are figures of speech, and are used to permit
the speaker the liberty to drive home his thought by creating a picture
of the idea. God is not a divorce´, and it does not rain cats and dogs.
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi
One common denominator of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi
was the doctrine of Jewish-Creation-Marriage. As we said earlier,
the vehicle of the Messiah was in the hands of the administrators of
Jewish marriage. The contemporaneousness of Ezra, the scribe,
Nehemiah, the governor, and Malachi, the prophet, is without
question. Ezra and Nehemiah are co-workers in their ministry,
causing the ancients to refer to their writings as a single volume:
Ezra-Nehemiah. Some scholars even believe that Ezra was Malachi,
although this is not true, it nevertheless reveals the context linking the
messages of these men.183
These three prophets were equally perplexed with the
conduct of the Jewish remnant returning to Jerusalem. While in
Babylon the children of Israel learned the custom of the heathen—
divorce with remarriage, and marriage with the heathen. The latter
prohibition was to ensure that the Messiah was Jewish, the seed of
David. In God's wisdom He saw a Jewish child as the only hope for
the world. Consequently, when these prophets found divorce,
remarriage, and heathen-remarriage in the ranks of Israel, they began
barking. Ezra pulled his hair out, Nehemiah pulled out the hair of the
offenders, and Malachi warns the guilty that God will "cut off" those
who divorced their Jewish wives and married the daughters of the
heathen. Some see the marriage account of Ezra and Malachi as one,
nevertheless there is ample evidence that they describe two separate
accounts of marital apostasy in Israel. But the one cohesive element
is Jewish-marital corruption. On the one hand Jewish men were found
to have married heathen women and some had illegitimate (nonJewish) children by them; and on the other some had divorced their
Jewish wives and had taken up home-making with heathen wives.
While Ezra was in prayer, distressed about the problem of the
mixed marriages, some of which produced offspring, Shecaniah
offered a remarkable solution, "Now, therefore, let us make a
covenant with our God to put away all the wives, and such as are
178 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
born of them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of those who
tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according
to the law." The Jewish Publication Societies translation of the Holy
Scriptures according to the Masoretic Text translates the phrase
"according to the counsel of my lord" as "as according to the counsel
of my LORD", indicating that Shecaniah was, for the moment at
least, a prophet. Kiel and Delitzsch agree making this statement
regarding the phrase:
Instead of, according to the counsel of my Lord, De
Wette, Bertheau, and others, following the
paraphrase in the LXX. and 1 Esdras, read,
according to the counsel of my lord, i.e., of Ezra.
But this paraphrase being of no critical authority,
there is no sufficient reason for the alteration. For
Shecaniah to call Ezra my lord sounds strange, since
usually this title was only given by servants to their
master, or subjects to their sovereign, and Shecaniah
afterwards addresses him simply as thou. Besides,
Ezra had given no advice at all in this matter, and
still less had he come to any resolution about it with
the God-fearing members of the community. 184
The solution included the putting away of both the strange women
and their children. Keil and Delitzsch comment, "Separation from
women who already have children is far more grievous than parting
with childless wives." 185 The repentance suggested by Shecaniah
was referred to as evangelical repentance or true repentance by the
puritan preacher, John Colquhoun186 (1748-1827), that all repentance
must depart from all ungodliness or it is not repentance;
consequently, repentance needs no adjectives.
The putting away of these woman and their children appears
to be a simple matter of divorce, after all the act of "putting away"
refers to divorce. The comment made by Shecaniah, "and of those
who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done
according to the law," means that the act is proscribed in the law. But
you may ask where? He cannot be referencing (Deut. 24), for as we
explained there is no commandment there. The only commandment
he could be referring to is (Deut. 7:1-11):
Was God a Divorce´ ?
When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land
where thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out
many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the
Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites,
and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites,
seven nations greater and mightier than thou, and
when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before
thee, thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy
them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor
show mercy unto them. Neither shalt thou make
marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not
give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take
unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from
following me, that they may serve other gods; so
will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you,
and destroy thee suddenly. But thus shall ye deal
with them: ye shall destroy their altars, and break
down their images, and cut down their idols, and
burn their carved images with fire. For thou art an
holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy
God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto
himself, above all people who are upon the face of
the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you,
nor choose you, because ye were more in number
than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people.
But because the Lord loved you, and because he
would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your
fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty
hand, and redeemed you out of the house of
bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.
Know, therefore, that the Lord thy God, he is God,
the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy
with them who love him and keep his
commandments to a thousand generations, and
repayeth them who hate him to their face, to destroy
them; he will not be slack to him who hateth him; he
will repay him to his face. Thou shalt, therefore,
keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the
179
180 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
ordinances, which I command thee this day, to do
them.
Deut. 7:1- 11
Israel was to "utterly destroy" their heathen neighbors, being
forbidden to make any covenant with them especially a marriage
covenant. Some have reasonably concluded that if the only
relationship the Israelite’s were permitted to have with these seven
heathen nations was that of annihilator, then all other relationships
were void; consequently, the heathen marriages of Ezra would be
considered "unreal marriages." Heth and Wenham note, "As early as
1890, George Rawlinson observed:”
It is quite clear that [Ezra] read the Law as
absolutely prohibitive of mixed marriages (Ezra ix.
10-14)—i.e. as not only forbidding their inception,
but their continuance. Strictly speaking, he probably
looked upon them as unreal marriages, and so as no
better than ordinary illicit connections. For the evils
which flow from such unions, those who make them,
and not those who break them, are responsible.187
They go on to explain the meaning of the Hebrew words employed by
Ezra:
In Ezra's eyes this was not a question of breaking up
legitimate marriages but of nullifying those which
were contrary to the law. This is further suggested
by the two Hebrew words Ezra chose to describe
these 'marriages' (nasa and yasab*)188 and the
'divorce´ terminology he employs.189 Ezra was a
scribe skilled in the law of Moses' (Ezra 7:6). He
studied, practiced and taught it in Israel (v. 10). Yet
he employs out-of-the-ordinary terminology to
describe the 'marrying' ('taking') and the 'divorcing'
('sending away') of these women. Furthermore, how
could these Israelites have made a covenant with
God (Ezra 10:3) to put away their legal 'wives' if it is
true that Scripture portrays marriage as a covenant
made between husband and wife in the presence of
Was God a Divorce´ ?
181
God? Ezra's prayer seems to indicate further that
'intermarriage' had not yet actually taken place (cf.
Ezra 9:2 with 9:14). 190
John MacArthur agrees, "There's a sense here in which God doesn't
even recognize these marriages." 191 The concept of "unreal
marriages" sounds a note with Agustine's "adulterous marriages," 192
which we will address later. As for now, "unreal marriages" are a
distinct possibility, and if so, Heth and Wenham are correct, "For the
evils which flow from such unions, those who make them, and not
those who break them, are responsible." It must be noted that
although the separation of the wives with children is especially
difficult, it nevertheless was the fruit of true repentance.
The concept of "unreal marriages" is simple. A marriage
within the forbidden degrees would be "unreal"; or a matter of
incestuous or consanguineous marriage. A marriage to a previously
divorced wife who had another husband during the interim was
"unreal" or an abomination. Therefore a marriage to a person who
was to be annihilated would have been an "unreal" marriage, or an
abomination. Augustine refers to marriages built on adultery as
"unreal" or "adulterous marriages." In each case the shame of sin
belongs to him who unites such marriages not to him who puts them
asunder. These "unreal" marriages simply are not joined together by
God, and they should be put away. Since these "unreal" marriages
were never marriages their disunion cannot legally meet the
definition of divorce; however, the term divorce would be appropriate
in the common meaning of the act. But to justify the act of divorce
on the basis of the Ezra text is wrong. Technically there was no
divorce in Ezra, it was legal abandonment, legal separation.
Ezra's prayer is answered and the Israelites including clergy
separate from their foreign wives and children. Lanely, referencing
Wright, places Ezra in Jerusalem with the mixed marriage problem in
458 B.C.193 , and he places Nehemiah in Jerusalem facing the same
problem in 444 B.C., 194 just a mere fourteen years later. Laney
states, "Unfortunately, the temptation to intermarry continued to
plague the restoration community." 195 As mentioned, Nehemiah
rather than yank his hair out, chose to yank the hair out of those who
defied God's law of separation. It apparently worked, for Nehemiah
states that, "I cleansed them from all foreigners." We are not told
182 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
how he cleansed the defiled lot, perhaps he used the Ezra formula, a
logical rather than a legal divorce. It should be noted that the mixed
marriages of Nehemiah included defiled foreign children, and since
he cleansed them from all foreigners, we can assume that the defiled
children were put away with their mothers.
Providing that he is in fact not Ezra 196, Malachi brings us the
final saga of the Israelite propensity toward "unreal" marriage in his
writings. Surprisingly, Malachi's account is of particular interest, for
it unexpectedly reads like a NT text. It is for this reason that some
object to the traditional understanding of the text:
Have we not all one father? Hath not one God
created us? Why do we deal treacherously, every
man against his brother, by profaning the covenant
of our fathers? Judah hath dealt treacherously, and
an abomination is committed in Israel and in
Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of
the Lord which he loved, and hath married the
daughter of a foreign god. The Lord will cut off the
man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out
of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an
offering unto the Lord of hosts. And this have ye
done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears,
with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he
regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it
with good will at your hand.
Yet ye say, Why? Because the Lord hath been
witness between thee and the wife of thy youth,
against whom thou hast dealt treacherously; yet is
she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of
the spirit. And why one? That he might seek a
godly seed. Therefore, take heed to your spirit, and
let none deal treacherously against the wife of his
youth. For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he
hateth putting away; for one covereth violence with
his garment, saith the Lord of hosts; therefore, take
heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Was God a Divorce´ ?
183
Mal. 2: 10-16
Able Isaksson, for one, labors to explain this text metaphorically or
what is referred to as the cultic interpretation. Here Israel's marriage
to the daughter foreign god is explained by Isaksson to be a symbolic
description of Israel's embracement of idolatry. He makes a point of
the obscurity of the text and that he believes v.15 is corrupt.197 But
regardless of this one obscure text the entire treatise of Malachi has a
literal format referring directly to Jacob, Easu, Levi, God's covenant
with Israel, God's immutability, the sudden coming of the Forerunner,
the people robbing God of tithes, he rebukes adulterers, and predicts
the coming Day of the Lord.
Most commentators agree that in this text for a Jewish man to
act "treacherously" meant that he divorced the wife of his youth, and
married a younger foreign woman. This traitorous act of no longer
cleaving to their wives was being committed by many Israelites,
priests included, and is fiercely attached by Malachi. He explains the
reason for his anger. God had chosen the nation to be a holy nation; a
nation which would be a blessing to all other peoples; a nation that
married Jehovah in holy covenant. The chosen covenant nation which
would be the progenitors of the holy seed, the Infant Son of
Bethlehem. By departing from the wives of their youth and marrying
foreign women the nation was breaking their covenant marriage with
Jehovah, falling into idolatry, and corrupting Jewish creation
marriage, the ultimate hope of mankind; that would bring forth the
victorious “seed of the woman” Gen. 3:15 the Messiah the Savior of
mankind.
Isaksson, disbelieves that Israel understood monogamous
marriage at this time, but the text betrays his belief. Even though he
believes the text to be corrupt he has severe problems with the
question in v.15, "And did he not make one?" Most commentators
see this as a reference to (Gen. 2:24), "Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall
be one flesh." This combined with v.16, "For the Lord, the God of
Israel saith that he hateth putting away," drive home the truth of
monogamy, the single pair.
An interesting comment regarding the question of: "Whom
hath God joined together?", is answered here; He hath joined
together all "real" marriages. In v.14 we are told that God was a
184 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
witness between the marriage which these Jews had contracted with
the wives of their youth; these earlier wives were their true wives.
Their first marriage was a covenant between the Jewish man and a
Jewish woman, and witnessed by God. Keil and Delitzsch make this
comment regarding the sacredness of the marriage ceremony:
The words, "because Jehovah was a witness between
thee and the wife of thy youth," cannot be
understood as Ges., Umbreit, and Koehler assume,
in accordance with ch. iii.5, as signifying that
Jehovah had interposed between them as an
avenging witness; for in that case ‫הציד‬ would
necessarily be construed with ‫ ב‬but they refer to the
fact that the marriage took place before the face of
God, or with looking up to God; and the objection
that nothing is known of any religious benediction at
the marriage, or of any mutual vow of fidelity, is
merely an argumentum a silentio, which proves
nothing. If the marriage was a berith ' Elohim (a
covenant of God), as described in Prov. ii.17 [Who
forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the
covenant of her God], it was also concluded before
the face of God, and God was a witness to the
marriage. With the expression "wife of thy youth"
the prophet appeals to the heart of the husband,
pointing to the love of his youth with which the
marriage had been entered into; and so also in the
circumstantial clause, through which he brings to the
light the faithless treatment of the wife in putting her
away; "Yet she was thy companion, who shared thy
joy and sorrow, and the wife of thy covenant, with
whom thou didst make a covenant for life." 198
The exasperating thing about these blessed marriages was that the
Jewish men mentioned had dealt treacherously with their wives,
divorcing them. The pleasing thing about these divorced wives was
the fact that God saw the divorcees as still married, “yet is she thy
companion, and the wife of thy covenant.” That divorce was not
recognized by the Lord God.
Was God a Divorce´ ?
185
The next statement of the text presents a most startling
element to those who hold a divorce view, "for the Lord, the God of
Israel, saith he hateth putting away." At the mention of the God of
Israel hating divorce, the commentators start a flurry of quick
reflections. But what has been said is said, The God of Israel hates
divorce! Throughout this treatise we have laid the explanation for this
cry. Slowly, layer by layer the flesh has been removed from the
breast of God and now His heart is fully revealed to the eyes of the
world. God cries out, "I love creation-marriage, I hate divorce." As
a mother bear closing in to revenge an assault on her cubs, the God of
these Israelite divorced women was raging with fury to establish
justice. The treacherous act of divorcing these women caused the
altar of Israel to catch the tears and the voices of these weeping
women. Their cries caused God to condemn their Jewish husbands,
"I will cut off (kill) the man that doeth this, the master and the
scholar." God continues His indictment, He accuses these men of
wearing blood stained garments, "for one covereth violence with his
garment." His cries will not stop until He intercedes, He will send a
special messenger (the Baptist) to correct the problem of "adulterous
and unreal marriages", divorce and remarriage. The nation had fallen
into the decay of sin causing it to threaten the only hope of mankind,
creation-marriage and Bethlehem. God would now intercede:
Ye have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet ye
say, In what way have we wearied him? When ye
say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of
the Lord, and he delighted in them; or, Where is the
God of justice? Behold, I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me; and the
Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his
temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom
ye delight in; behold, he shall come, saith the Lord
of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming?
And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is
like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap. And he
shall sit like a refiner and purifier of silver; and he
shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them like
gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an
offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering of
186 Chapter Five
Jesus’ Doctrine
Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in
the days of old, and as in former years. And I will
come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift
witness against the sorcerers, and against the
adulterers, and against false swearers, and against
those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the
widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the
sojourner from his right, and fear not me, saith the
Lord of hosts. For I am the Lord, I change not;
therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Mal. 2:17-3:6
God was angry with divorce. He hateth putting away. He will
answer their query, "Where is the God of Justice?" He will send His
messenger, who shall prepare the way before Him, and then He, the
Lord, shall suddenly come. The prophet could not see the Day of
Grace for the Day of the Lord. Nevertheless, God's anger would
reveal itself universally. He was angry will all men, everywhere.
Then He sent John the Baptist to make his path straight. One of the
primary ways of the Lord was creation-marriage. John the Baptist
was sent to make the way of creation-marriage straight. His sermon:
"Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Here Malachi cries
against adultery. His cries were provoked by those who dealt
treacherously divorcing their wives. Malachi calls on his hearers to
repent; to return to the ordinance of the Lord, the ordinance of
creation-marriage: "Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone
away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me
[Repent], and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts."
God sent John the Baptist to restore, among other things,
creation-marriage. In his effort to do just that he was required to
place his bloodied head and tongue on a platter of silver which was
his final sermon against divorce, and remarriage: the incest of Herod.
The marriage covenant is a natural symbol of God's
covenants, especially His covenant with the nation He married, Israel.
For a man to break his marriage covenant is diametrically opposed to
the nature of God. He would never break his covenant with Jacob:
"For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not
consumed. God was not a divorce´? A thousand times, NO!
CHAPTER SIX
What Is Jesus’ Doctrine Of Marriage, Divorce, and
Remarriage?
It is a delight to consider the theme of marriage in the
N.T. Like its O.T. counterpart the N.T. doctrine of marriage
endorses and demonstrates the sound doctrine of creationmarriage, and like the O.T. where marriage is used typically for
Jehovah’s marriage to Israel, so the N.T. speaks of the union of
Christ and His Church as the ultimate marriage; raising marriage
as the final eternal state, while fully defending its original
meaning—Again this treatise does not teach sacramental
marriage; the act by which grace is acquired. In the doctrine of
salvation by Grace we learn that our eternal security, is directly
proportional to our union with Christ; the Scriptures refer to this
union as a marriage. Our Salvation is by Grace through Faith,
not of Works, lest any man should boast; it is permanent,
inseparable, and indissoluble; just as Creation-Marriage. Divorce
is non-existent and incomprehensible to creation-marriage;
therefore remarriage after divorce is even more non-existent, and
more incomprehensible—if that is possible. Thus any union of
the married after divorce of a living partner is adultery. There is
no salvation in the act of adultery. Permit me to explain. By
permitting remarriage after divorce the church is condoning the
continual act of adultery—that is to permit willful sin. There is
no forgiveness for willful sin but a certain fearful judgement
(Heb. 10:26,27). To teach that adultery on the part of the married
is a license for divorce and remarriage is to teach that the first
marriage is dissolved by adultery. The exact doctrine one thus
teaches is that the original married adulterer is a dead partner—
that is the Westminister Confession. Thus the Law of Moses has
been exercised and the believer is living under the doctrine of the
188
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Works of the Law. Thus the church that teaches a doctrine that
permits divorce and remarriage is teaching legalism and has
applied the doctrine of works for salvation, i.e. there is salvation
for those who continuously continue in the sin of adultery. The
problem here is that the original married adulterer is living thus
the church is permitting the remarried innocent partner to commit
willful adultery under their false doctrine of remarriage; a
doctrine they claim is Biblical. Mixing the doctrine of the Works
of the Law with the Doctrine of Grace inevitably leads to
teaching only the doctrine of works; i.e. you can work on your
sin; where as the doctrine of Grace declares that you must repent
of your sin—this is an altogether different doctrine. Under the
doctrine of Grace the innocent partner must extend to the guilty
partner the offer of Grace, i.e. to offer the opportunity of
repentance and restoration of the marriage till death does them
part.
As we learned in the close of the O.T. creation-marriage
reigned viable in spite of the onslaught of four millennia of
adversity: viable as the vehicle to provide the support for the
incarnation of the Messiah, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It
was also the vehicle to introduce us to His Witness, John the
Baptist. Matthew opens the N.T. with the genealogy of Jesus
Christ the Son of David, and then proceeds to a magnificent
account of the betrothal of Joseph and Mary. It is magnificent in
that Matthew is moved by the Holy Ghost to reveal what he
apparently understands as some very important facts concerning
the birth of Christ. Matthew has something to say that none of
the other N.T. writers seem to consider important, if in fact they
were aware of the knowledge. So here in his first chapter
Matthew sets his pen to the revelation of the mystery of the
virgin birth, the incarnation of Christ. He then introduces us to a
peculiar question regarding an act of fornication (premarital
intercourse) and its required penalty, the act of divorce at the
time of Christ. All of this is included in the revelation of the
virgin birth of Christ. So dear reader, we cannot be accused of
forcing these issues into Matthew, for he, himself, has taken the
bold offensive in the teaching of the doctrine of marriage,
divorce, and remarriage in the N.T. This fact is very important to
our discussion.
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
189
Matthew 1:18-19
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:
When as his mother Mary was espoused to
Joseph, before they came together, she was
found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then
Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not
willing to make her a public example, was
minded to put her away privily.
Matt. 1:18,19
As Matthew begins his account of the virgin birth he
strikes at a very perplexing moment in the life of Joseph.
Unknown to Joseph, the virgin birth at that moment undoubtedly
created in his mind the crisis of shame, for Joseph felt the
conviction and need to bring a judicial judgment against his
betrothed spouse, Mary. Matthew specifically notes that the birth
of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was
espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child. We can narrow this down to the fact that Joseph either
noticed, or was informed that Mary was pregnant. Of course,
Mary knew that the Holy Ghost came upon her, and the power of
the Highest overshadowed her, and that behold she conceived in
her womb, and would bring forth a son. But, apparently Joseph
did not have this knowledge. The Scripture is silent as to Mary’s
thoughts or words at this moment, however Joseph is being
moved by thoughts and emotions that are devastating—It should
be noted here that Mary was one who “pondered” the deep things
of God in her heart. She waited for God the Holy Spirit to
inform Joseph. This faithful pondering woman is a tribute to the
life of faith; she certainly was one of the hero’s of faith recorded
in Scripture.
This revelation to the reader must be considered vital to the
doctrine of Christ and the subject of creation-marriage. We are
clearly told that Joseph was a just man. This of course means that
Joseph was slow to anger, and was willing to investigate the matter,
and come to a reasonable decision as to his action. His immediate
thought was that Mary had committed a special act of fornication.
190
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
This idea is certainly supplied with Joseph’s first assessment, i.e. he
thought Mary had committed an act of fornication and it required that
he “put her away,” that is divorce her as per the Jewish legal custom
at that time. The revelation here is that Joseph was living under a
Jewish betrothal-matrimonial custom that legally regarded Mary his
espoused fiancée, in equal status as his legal wife. In this case her
being with child out of wedlock, before they came together to
consummate the marriage, constituted an illegal act of premarital
sexual intercourse, a special case of fornication. The specific
definition of fornication in this case is reserved to the Jewish
betrothed couple. In the event that an espoused fiancée was found to
have committed fornication the espoused fiancé (the male) was
expected to put the woman away publicly, i.e. divorce her in the
public square. Matthew obviously understood the options of his
cultural setting. He is specific and clear in his revelation. Here in
chapter one and verse eighteen Matthew introduces the subject of
divorce. This is remarkable to Matthew. Keep this in mind as we
study divorce in the N.T. Edersheim makes the following comment:
According, their betrothal must have been of the
simplest, and the dowry settled the smallest possible.
Whichever of the two modes of betrothal may have
been adopted: in the presence of witnesses—either
by solemn word of mouth, in due prescribed
formality, with the added pledge of a piece of
money, however small, or of money's worth for use;
or else by writing (the so-called Shitre Erusin)—
there would be no sumptuous feast to follow; and
the ceremony would conclude with some such
benediction as that afterwards in use: 'Blessed art
Thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, Who
hath sanctified us by His commandments, and
enjoined us about incest, and forbidden the
betrothed, but allowed us those wedded by Chuppah
(the marriage-baldachino) and betrothal. Blessed art
Thou, Who sanctifiest Israel by Chuppah and
betrothal'—the whole being perhaps concluded by a
benediction over the statutory cup of wine, which
was tasted in turn by the betrothed. From that
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
191
moment Mary was the betrothed wife of Joseph;
their relationship as sacred, as if they had already
been wedded. Any breach of it would be treated as
adultery; nor could the band be dissolved except, as
after marriage, by regular divorce.199
Before leaving this text make note of this interesting
benediction which makes a peculiar mention of incest: "Blessed art
Thou, O Lord our God, King of the World, Who hath sanctified us by
His commandments, and enjoined [warned] us about incest, and
forbidden the betrothed." Incest was a paramount concern of the N.T.
marriage codes.
John the Baptist: Marriage and Divorce
Jesus and Divorce is the title of the treatise of Heth and
Wenham regarding the teaching of the N.T. and divorce. A correct
understanding of divorce in the N.T. must rely on Jesus’ teaching on
the subject. Heth and Wenham defend the “Early Church View” of
divorce and remarriage, concluding that Jesus taught a noremarriage-this-side-of-death doctrine of divorce and remarriage. As
these authors have said, the teaching of Jesus and divorce is most
vital; but for a moment let us consider how the subject of marriage,
divorce, and remarriage impact the ministry of John the Baptist.
Prior to Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, John the Baptist
preached a fiery marriage message. Malachi’s prophecy declared that
John would be sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Then Malachi
goes on to say that John would be a swift witness against sinners, and
he specifically mentions adulterers (Mal. 3:5). John certainly
fulfilled this prophecy as we follow his ministry. As a matter of fact
it appears that his discourse on adultery-incest was his greatest
sermon. Matthew chooses to reveal the fullness of John’s sermon in
chapter fourteen of his Gospel.
The O.T. closes with this promise, “Behold, I will send my
messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me,” (Mal. 3:1a).
Creation-marriage has its place in the Lord’s way, and the
Messenger preparing the Lord’s way defended creation-marriage with
his life. Malachi has his own dissertation on marriage, divorce, and
remarriage as we have previously observed. Luke commences the
192
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
life of the Baptist with this statement, “There was, in the days of
Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias,”
(Lk.1:5a). Zacharias was the father of John the Baptist. Herod and
his family played a significant role in the lives of Jesus and the
Baptist. The Herod mentioned here (Lk. 1) is Herod the Great, Herod
I. Edersheim reports that Herod the Great had ten wives and many
sons. His wife Malthake, a Samaritan, was the mother of Herod
Archelaus, and Herod Antipas. Another wife, Cleopatra of
Jerusalem, bore Herod Philip. 200 These are the major personages of
Herod I who will stage their warfare against creation-marriage, John,
and our Lord. Herod the Great was the bloody tyrant who slew the
children of Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. Here in (Matt. 14:1-11)
the subjects of our study are Herod Antipas and Herod Philip, sons of
the same father. Antipas ordered the bloody decapitation of the
Baptist.
Another interesting note here is that the two controversial
rabbi’s of the Gospel era, Hillel and Shammai lived and taught in
Jerusalem during the reign of Herod I. These two rabbis would
inspire two schools of biblical interpretation that forms the sequel to
our N.T. discussion of divorce; they held opposing views: “Both gave
their names to ‘schools’, whose direction was generally different—
not infrequently, it seems, chiefly for the sake of opposition.”
Edersheim honors Hillel as the “representative Jewish reformer,” and
places him presiding over the meeting of the Sanhedrin which, in
answer to Herod the Great’s inquiry, pointed to Bethlehem as the
birthplace of the Messiah. Later we find the schools of these rabbis
leading a controversy over the, so called, rightful cause for divorce.
Edersheim also reports that some “falsely” represented Hillel as he
whose principles closely resemble the teaching of Jesus, or, according
to certain writers, were its source.201 However, we will learn that
Hillel’s followers would be opposed to Jesus’ strict teaching
concerning divorce. On the other hand to some it was Jesus who
actually was on the side of Shammai, the opponent of Hillel.
Nevertheless, we will see that Jesus agrees with neither; Jesus’
teaching would be revolutionary to Hillel and Shammai, and this
should be of no surprise since Jesus’ teaching on divorce and
remarriage was so revolutionary that His own disciples became irate
and said, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to
marry.” So we can certainly conclude that divorce and remarriage
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
193
were important topics to the political and religious leaders of the
Gospel era, and we will see that John and Jesus were deeply involved
in these issues.
Luke goes on to tell us that the priest Zacharias had a wife of
the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. They were both
righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord, blameless (Lk. 1:5,6). Their marriage was a
creation-marriage. Elisabeth was barren. Then, while attending to
the altar, an angel appeared to Zacharias telling him that he and his
aged wife would bare a son, and call his name John, i.e. the Baptist.
This son would turn the hearts of the fathers toward their children—
could it be at that time that the modern divorce-broken-familysyndrome had John turning the hearts of divorced fathers and mothers
toward their children? While yet in the womb, John leaps for joy at
the very presence of Mary who was with child, the child Jesus. From
the womb John can prove he loved his Savior. He was a dedicated
soldier. He was a devoted preacher. He was John the Baptist, the
preacher of repentance and the Gospel, the defender of creationmarriage. His message of repentance was simple, “Repent for the
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” To John repentance was the first step
in making the way of the Lord straight. To John repentance was the
first step in dealing with any and all the sins of the people. All the
marriage sins of his day were relegated to that first step, repentance.
If John were to address the marriage sins of the world today he would
again preach repentance. The first word John preached was
“Repent.” The first word Jesus preached was “Repent.” Today this
must also be the first step for everyone involved in a marriage sin.
This is the only way of Salvation by Grace. Sola Gratia. Now let us
return to preaching of the Baptist and the power of his last sermon:
1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame
of Jesus,
2 And said unto his servants, This is John the
Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore
mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him,
and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother
Philip's wife.
4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to
194
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
have her.
5 And when he would have put him to death, he
feared the multitude, because they counted him as a
prophet.
6 But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter
of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod.
7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her
whatsoever she would ask.
8 And she, being before instructed of her mother,
said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger.
9 And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's
sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he
commanded it to be given her.
10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison.
11 And his head was brought in a charger, and
given to the damsel: and she brought it to her
mother.
Matt. 14:1-11
John’s last and greatest sermon was aimed at the marriage sin of the
political ruler of his time, Herod Antipas. We must not loose site of
the fact that John and Jesus were one in their doctrine and teaching.
Jesus testified to this when he was preaching his landmark sermon, Ye
Must Be Born-Again, to the Pharisee, Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, I
say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have
seen; and ye receive not our witness” (Jn.3:11). John was the sharp
sword witness of his Lord, and his last sermon cut to the heart of
Herod Antipas and Herodias. Antipas’ half brother by his father,
Herod Philip was previously married to Herodias. She became
disenchanted with Philip because he was disinherited by his father
Herod the Great. The following is a excerpt from the N.T.
commentator R.C.H. Lenski:
This Philip was disinherited through the treachery of
his mother and lived privately in Rome with
Herodias and their daughter Salome. Herod Antipas
was a son of Herod the Great and the Samaritan
Malthake and thus a half-uncle of Herodias, and was
married to the daughter of Aretas, King of Arabia
Petrea. While he was on a visit to Rome, Antipas
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
195
and Herodias eloped, and the wife of Antipas, not
waiting to be divorced, returned to her father, and a
war followed between Aretas and Herod Antipas.
Matt. 14:4 “For John said unto him, It is not
lawful for thee to have her.” Herod’s crime [his
marriage] was a public outrage. The woman
Herodias had first married her own father’s brother
and then had run away and lived with the halfbrother of her husband, who thus was also her halfuncle and already had a wife. Two marriages were
disrupted, and the new union was not a marriage. It
was plain adultery and within the forbidden degrees
of consanguinity [my emphasis]. Josephus charges
Herodias with the intention of confounding her
country’s institutions. No wonder John raised his
voice although Herod was his ruler.” To have her” =
to have as a wife.202
The editor and translator of The Works of Flavius Josephus, William
Whiston makes the following comment regarding the Baptist’s
accusation of Herod:
Nor was it, as I agree with Grotius and others of the
learned, Philip the tetrarch, but this Herod-Philip,
whose wife Herod [Antipas] the tetrarch had
married, and in that her first husbands lifetime, and
when her first husband has issue by her; for which
adulterous and incestuous marriage John the Baptist
justly reproved Herod [Antipas] the tetrarch; and for
which reproof Salome, the daughter of Herodias by
her first husband Herod-Philip, who was still alive,
occasioned him to be unjustly beheaded.203
So now we have Matthew describing another case of “special
fornication” regarding marriage, i.e. incest. This is remarkable to say
the least. Matthew reports two cases of porneia (fornication) in
marriage and both cases required divorce to conclude them. John’s
sermon was so cutting that the only alternative for the King and his
illegal wife was to repent or silence the tongue of John the Baptist;
196
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
and what better way to silence his tongue then to decapitate the
preacher; cutting off his head with his tongue in his mouth. What a
successful preacher was the Baptist; like Churchill declared to Hitler
while referring to England, “Some chicken, Some neck,” we can
likewise say, Some preacher, Some head. Like I said, John the
Baptist was a defender of creation-marriage; he literally defended
the doctrine with his bloody head on a platter offered to the primary
recipient of his sermon, Herodias. I find it an interesting point that
this man John was a man whose sermons would drive him to advance
upon every sin of all men. His assault was relentless. But regardless
of his ubiquitous attack one particular sin would fail to yield to him
without a death-to-death fight. John was called upon to confront this
sin head-on—no pun intended.
John was consumed with conviction. His eyes blared. His
mind was set for the attack. He formulated the exact phrase he
needed and cried out, “It is not lawful for thee to have her.” “It is not
lawful for thee to have her.” “It is not lawful for thee to have her.”
John’s last sermon was his best. He was a seasoned preacher.
Fearless. He calculated his offensive thrust. His aim was perfect. He
fires his shot heard round the world: Herod commits incest! Herod
commits incest! Herod commits incest! He divided Herod’s soul and
spirit, and Herodias’ bone and marrow. Herod was wounded, but
Herodias was mortally wounded. She was now heart dead—dead
hardened. Breathing a fiery rage, she now has one burning desire, the
death of the Baptist. John called for Herod to repudiate Herodias. He
was crying out to Herod, “It is unlawful to have her”—Put Put her
away—“It is unlawful to have her”—Put her away—“It is unlawful to
have her”—Divorce her. This is Matthew’s second dissertation on
divorce.
But what went ye out for to see? A prophet? yea, I
say unto you, and more than a prophet. For this is
he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my
messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy
way before thee. Verily I say unto you, Among
them that are born of women there hath not risen a
greater than John the Baptist: Matt. 11: 9 ff
Yes, Herod it is unlawful for you to have your brother Philip’s wife.
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
197
John had two verses in mind: Lev. 18:16 Thou shalt not uncover the
nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness, and
Lev.20:21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean
thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness. Both of these
verses speak of incest, sexual intercourse within the forbidden
degrees. That is sexual intercourse between blood relatives,
consanguineous marriage if you will—another special case of
porneia, fornication.
Before we leave the last sermon and martyrdom of the
Baptist we must note the geography of this event, for it will play a
vital role in Matthew’s third dissertation of divorce. Edersheim
makes the following comment regarding the geographic location of
John’s last public preaching:
There is no necessity for supposing that John and the
disciples of Jesus baptized at, or quite close to, the
same place. On the contrary, such immediate
juxtaposition seems, for obvious reasons, unlikely.
Jesus was within the boundaries of the province of
Judea, while John baptized at Aenon (the springs),
near Salim. The latter site has not been identified.
But the oldest tradition, which places it a few miles
to the south of Bethshean (Scythopolis), on the
border of Samaria and Galilee, has this in its favour,
that it locates the scene of John’s last public work
close to the seat of Herod Antipas, into whose power
the Baptist was so soon to be delivered.204
Another element in the martyrdom of John noted by
Edersheim was the intrigue of the Pharisees and the influence they
exerted on Herod Antipas. The Pharisees certainly knew the threat
John posed to Herod Antipas and Herodias; did they actually help
create the crisis that led to John’s death? Edersheim believes that is
just what happened.
Besides, the Pharisees may have used
Antipas as their tool, and worked upon his wretched
superstition to effect their own purposes. And this is
198
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
what we suppose to have been the case. The
reference to the Pharisaic spying and to their
comparisons between the influence of Jesus and
John, which led to the withdrawal of Christ into
Galilee, seems to imply that the Pharisees had
something to do with the imprisonment of John.
Their connection with Herod appears even more
clearly in the attempt to induce Christ’s departure
from Galilee, on pretext of Herod’s machinations. It
will be remembered that the Lord unmasked their
hypocrisy by bidding them go back to Herod,
showing that He fully knew that real danger
threatened Him, not from the Tetrarch, but from the
leaders of the party [Pharisaic] in Jerusalem
(Lk.13:31-33). Our inference therefore is that
Pharisaic intrigue had a very large share in giving
effect to Herod’s fear of the Baptist and of his
reproofs.205
The next question we face is that after John’s death, were the
Pharisees trying to likewise have Jesus incarcerated in the prison of
Antipas? When we open (Matt.19) Jesus is found again in the coasts
of Judea beyond Jordan. It was here that the Pharisees tempt Jesus to
discuss the subject of divorce. They knew that Jesus and John
preached the same message concerning creation-marriage. Were
they trying to get Jesus to make a public statement on divorce in
order to excite the wrath of Herod and Herodias? Edersheim makes
this fitting comment:
Accordingly, when these Pharisees again
encountered Jesus, now on his journey to Judea, they
resumed the subject precisely where it had been
broken off when they had last met Him, only now
with the object of ‘tempting Him.’ Perhaps it may
also have been in the hope that, by getting Christ to
commit Himself against divorce in Perea—the
territory of Herod—they might enlist against Him,
as formerly against the Baptist, the implacable
hatred of Herodias.206
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
199
Edersheim is focused. Yes, the Pharisaic intrigue played a role in the
life of John and Jesus. The Pharisees were certainly aware of Herod
Antipas’ authority and control over John and Jesus; and as he points
out Jesus knew His real threat was not Herod but the Pharisee and the
leaders at Jerusalem. Edersheim does us a fine service here. Luke
points this out:
31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees,
saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for
Herod will kill thee.
32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox,
Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and
tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
33 Nevertheless I must walk to day, and tomorrow,
and the day following: for it cannot be that a prophet
perish out of Jerusalem.
34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the
prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee;
how often would I have gathered thy children
together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her
wings, and ye would not!
35 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and
verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the
time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that
cometh in the name of the Lord. Luke 13:31-33
The Baptists Final Hour
I see it as fitting that we honor John with a short eulogy; I
feel it is no burden of the reader to contemplate the tribute Edersheim
pays to The Baptist in this finely crafted account of his final hour:
It was early spring, shortly before the Passover, the
anniversary of the date of Herod the Great and of the
accession of (his son) Herod Antipas to the
Tetrarchy. A fit time for a Belshazzar-feast, when
such an one as Herod would gather to a grand
banquet his lords, and the military authorities, and
200
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
the chief men of Galilee. It is evening, and the
castle-palace is brilliantly lit up. The noise of music
and the shouts of revelry come across the slope into
the citadel, and fall into the deep dungeon where
waits the prisoner of Christ. And now the merriment
in the great banqueting-hall has reached its utmost
height. The king has nothing further to offer his
satiated quests, no fresh excitement. So let it be the
sensuous stimulus of dubious dances, and, to
complete it, let the dancer be the fair young daughter
of the king's wife, the very descendant of the
Asmonaean priest-princes! To viler depth of coarse
familiarity even a Herod could not have descended.
She has come, and she has danced, this
princely maiden, out of whom all maidenhood and
all princeliness have been brazed by a degenerate
mother, wretched offspring of the once noble
Maccabees. And she has done her best in that
wretched exhibition, and pleased Herod and them
that sat at meat with him. And now, amidst the
general plaudits, she shall have her reward—and the
king swears it to her with loud voice, that all around
hear it—even to the half of his kingdom. The
maiden steals out of the banquet-hall to ask her
mother what it shall be. Can there be doubt or
hesitation in the mind of Herodias? If there was one
object she had at heart, which these ten months she
had in vain sought to attain: it was the death of John
the Baptist. She remembered it all only too well—
her stormy, reckless past. The daughter of
Aristobulus, the ill-fated Asmonaean princess
Mariamme (I.), she had been married to her
half-uncle, Herod Philip, the son of Herod the Great
and of Mariamme (II.), the daughter of the
High-Priest (Boethos). At one time it seemed as if
Herod Philip would have been sole heir of his
father's dominions. But the old tyrant had changed
his testament, and Philip was left with great wealth,
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
but as a private person living in Jerusalem. This
little suited the woman's ambition. It was when his
half-brother, Herod Antipas, came on a visit to him
at Jerusalem that an intrigue began between the
Tetrarch and his brother's wife. It was agreed that,
after the return of Antipas from his impending
journey to Rome, he would repudiate his wife, the
daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, and wed
Herodias. But Aretas' daughter heard of the plot,
and having obtained her husband's consent to go to
Machaerus, she fled thence to her father. This, of
course, led to enmity between Antipas and Aretas.
Nevertheless, the adulterous marriage with Herodias
followed. In a few sentences the story may be
carried to its termination. The woman proved the
curse and ruin of Antipas. First came the murder of
the Baptist, which sent a shrill of horror through the
people, and to which all the later misfortunes of
Herod were attributed. Then followed a war with
Aretas, in which the Tetrarch was worsted. And,
last of all, his wife's ambition led him to Rome to
solicit the title of King, lately given to Agrippa, the
brother of Herodias. Antipas not only failed, but
was deprived of his dominions, and banished to
Lyons in Gaul. The pride of the woman in refusing
favours from the Emperor, and her faithfulness to
her husband in his fallen fortunes, are the only
redeeming points in her history. As for Salome, who
was first married to her uncle, Philip the Tetrarch.
Legend has it, that her death was retributive, being
in consequence of a fall on the ice.
Such was the woman who had these many
months sought with the vengefulness and
determination of a Jezebel, to rid herself of the hated
person, who alone had dared publicly denounce her
sin, and whose words held her weak husband in awe.
The opportunity had now come for obtaining from
the vacillating monarch what her entreaties could
201
202
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
never have secured. As the Gospel puts it,
'instigated' by her mother, the damsel hesitated not.
We can readily fill in the outlined picture of what
followed. It only needed the mother's whispered
suggestion, and still flushed from her dance, Salome
re-entered the banqueting-hall. 'With haste,' as if no
time were to be lost, she went up to the king: 'I
would that thou forthwith give me in a charger, the
head of John the Baptist!' Silence must have fallen
on the assembly. Even into their hearts such a
demand from the lips of little more than a child must
have struck horror. They all knew John to be a
righteous and holy man. Wicked as they were, in
their superstition, if not religiousness, few, if any of
them, would have willingly lent himself to such
work. And they all knew, also, why Salome, or
rather Herodias, had made this demand. What
would Herod do? 'The king was exceedingly sorry.’
For months he had striven against this. His
conscience, fear of the people, inward horror at the
deed, all would have kept him from it. But he had
sworn to the maiden, who now stood before him,
claiming that the pledge be redeemed, and every eye
in the assembly was now fixed upon him.
Unfaithful to his God, to his conscience, to truth and
righteousness; not ashamed of any crime or sin, he
would yet be faithful to his half-drunken oath, and
appear honorable and true before such companions!
It has been but the contest of a moment.
‘Straightway’ the king gives the order to one of the
body-guards. The maiden hath withdrawn to await
the result with her mother. The guardsman has left
the banqueting-hall. Out into the cold spring night,
up that slope, and into the deep dungeon. As its
door opens, the noise of revelry comes with the light
of the torch which the man bears. No time for
preparation is given, nor needed. A few minutes
more, and the gory head of the Baptist is brought to
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
203
the maiden in a charger, and she gives the ghastly
dish to her mother.
It is all over! As the pale morning light
streams into the keep, the faithful disciples, who had
been told of it, come reverently to bear the headless
body to the burying. They go forth forever from that
accursed place, which is so soon to become a mass
of shapeless ruins. They go to tell it to Jesus, and
henceforth to remain with Him. We can imagine
what welcome awaited them. But the people ever
afterwards cursed the tyrant, and looked for those
judgments of God to follow, which were so soon to
descend on him. And he himself was ever
afterwards restless, wretched, and full of
apprehensions. He could scarcely believe that the
Baptist was really dead, and when the fame of Jesus
reached him, and those around suggested that this
was Elijah, a prophet, or as one of them, Herod's
mind, amidst its strange perplexities, still reverted to
the man whom he had murdered. It was a new
anxiety, perhaps, even so, a new hope; and as
formerly he had often and gladly heard the Baptist,
so now he would fain have seen Jesus. He would
see Him; but not now. In that dark night of betrayal,
he, who at the bidding of the child of an adulteress,
had murdered the Forerunner, might, with the
approbation of a Pilate, have rescued Him whose
faithful witness John had been. But night was to
merge into yet darker night. For it was the time and
the power of the Evil One. And yet: Jehovah
reigneth. 207
Could there be any doubt that John would receive the Savior's highest
accolade, "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of
women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist." We
might say that John gave his life for the true doctrine of creationmarriage.
204
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Jesus and the Doctrine of Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage
Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into
prison, he departed into Galilee;
Matt. 4:12
Lenski aptly points out that Jesus’ departure into Galilee was
not for fear of Herod Antipas, but rather that Jesus retired to Galilee,
correctly noting that Galilee was also the territory of Anitpas. Jesus
was going to take over where His Witness left off. He would now
begin His preaching. Again, His first sermon was one of repentance;
for His first word—like the Baptist—was Repent! “Repent for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
In prison John had time to contemplate his actions. The
fortress prison was exceedingly strong by nature, impregnable.
Josephus describes even its natural position as unassailable. John was
incarcerated in a dungeon, well guarded. Although John began to
question his Lord—“ Art thou he that should come, or do we look for
another”—we must note that John never questioned his sermon to
Herod and Herodias; for which he offered his bloody head to the god
of incest on an altar, the dinner table, of the god-king Herod Antipas.
One should not be startled with Herod’s remarks when he heard of
Jesus and His preaching: At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the
fame of Jesus, And said unto his servants, “This is John the Baptist;
he is risen from the dead” (Matt.14:1,2). To Herod, Jesus and John
were one. They both preached the same sermon on marriage.
Sermon On The Mount
While John was in prison for accusing Herod Antipas and
Herodias of being unlawfully wed, Jesus, the Evangelist, was
preaching His first sermon, "Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand." It must be noted that later when John requested that Jesus
provide him with credentials, Jesus noted among other things "that
the poor had the Gospel preached to them." Matthew then records the
sermon of Jesus that He preached on a mountain near Capernaum
from which we have entitled “The Sermon On the Mount.” This
writer is convinced that the Gospel is preached in this sermon. The
act of faith is to believe the truth about God, man, and sin; the truth
that God is Holy, and that man is a sinner. The truth is that God is
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
205
Omniscient. He knows everything about every man—Jesus said unto
her, “Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five
husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that
saidst thou truly” (Jn. 4:17,18)—He is a righteous God, He is love;
He is truth, and God is merciful; the truth necessary to every man;
man the sinner.
During this sermon Jesus was literally present with his
hearers and each word of it was drawn from every feature of his
voice, his face, his eyes, and his heart. He concluded by giving each
one of his hearers an invitation: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for
wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and
many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and
narrow is the way [I am the Way], which leadeth unto life [I am Life],
and few there be that find it,” and “Therefore whosoever heareth
these sayings of ‘mine,’ and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise
man, which built his house upon a rock” [I am the Rock], (Matt.
7:13,14; 24). In preaching the Gospel the preacher must preach
repentance and I believe that the “Sermon on the Mount” preaches
repentance like no other:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell. Matt. 5:27-29
The Sermon on the Mount preaches the Gospel with
simplicity and power. Every word is intended to evangelize the heart
of man. Man is given one narrow gate in which to pass, "Repent!
Repent! Repent! The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. The first word
of the sermon honors this idea, "Blessed are the poor in spirit [the
penitent] for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." The second word of
the sermon is the same, "Blessed are they that mourn [the penitent];
for they shall be comforted." The third word again repeats the call for
repentance, "Blessed are the meek [the penitent]; for they shall inherit
the earth. The forth word is the same, "Blessed are they who hunger
206
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
and thirst after righteousness [the penitent]; for they shall be filled."
Jesus drove this hope to the penitent as the introduction to His sermon
because He was about to draw his sword and pierce the heart of every
man who ever took a breath of earth’s air.
The content of the sermon have led some to believe that the
chronological order in which Matthew has placed it is misleading.208
Noting that the disciples had been called prior to the sermon, "And
seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was
seated, his disciples came unto him." By the end of the sermon we
see a multitude following Him, "When he was come down from the
mountain, great multitudes followed him." Nevertheless, the idea
that the sermon initially addresses the disciples has led some to see
the sermon as a Christian Code of Ethics. But to view Jesus as a
moralist is to miss his entire raison d'etre. It is a terrible theological
error to place Jesus on the side of the moralist. Jesus taught men to
repent. The need for repentance teaches the doctrine of total
depravity:
There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none
that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after
God. They are all gone out of the way, they are
together become unprofitable; there is none that
doeth good, no not one. Their throat is an open
sepulcher: with their tongues they have used deceit;
the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth
is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift
to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their
ways; and the way of peace have they not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we
know that whatever things the law saith, it saith to
them who are under the law, that every mouth may
be stopped, and all the world may become guilty
before God. Therefore, by the deeds of the law there
shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law
is the knowledge of sin. For all have sinned and
come short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:10ff)
This writer contends that the Sermon on the Mount teaches man his
depravity by the complete exposition of the Law, and that the sermon
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
207
preaches the Gospel to all men. His young disciples were in great
need to understand the Gospel. The multitude had the same need.
Jesus the Evangelist would preach the Gospel to the poor. All are
poor.
Jesus clearly declares that he is not come to destroy the law,
but came to fulfill it. With that said, one would think that He had
made His point, but He goes on: "For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from
the law, till all be fulfilled." Without apology the Preacher warns His
audience that He would use every jot and tittle of the Law to convict
them of sin, and to pierce their hearts asunder. He would drive the
spike of the law into the deepest secret of man. Jesus was a preacher
who was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come
to repentance. He then immediately preached repentance as no man
had ever preached:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, Thou
shalt not kill and whosoever shall kill shall be in
danger of judgment; but I say unto you that
whosoever is angry with his brother, without a
cause, shall be in danger of judgment; and
whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in
danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou
fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
(Matt. 5: 21,22)
Today, men make the same assumption, i.e. men are not
sinners unless they have killed someone. This seems to be their only
criteria for qualifying as a sinner. Well if that is the case, Jesus was
to prove that all men are murderers. The Sixth Commandment now
takes on an entirely new meaning. If a man is angry with his brother,
and curses his brother, Jesus convicts the man of murder. He teaches
that any form of anger, Raca to fool [both four letter words], is
murder. The object of His thought was to deprive anyone of his
listeners, disciple or stranger, to escape the accusation and guilt of
murder. All men were murderers; there is none righteous no not
one. The cry of Jesus grew louder and louder: "Repent for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand."
208
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Again, Jesus perceived that man believed he was innocent of
breaking the Seventh Commandment, adultery, i.e. innocent because
he never actually had physical intercourse with a woman other than
his wife. Men believe that since they have not committed actual
physical adultery they are not adulterers. This idea is true today. The
moralist relishes in his righteousness with the thought that he has
never laid carnally with any woman other than his wife. But Jesus
destroys the moralist’s self-righteousness. He drove every jot and
tittle of the Law into the heart of man. Jesus was not willing that any
should perish, but that all should come unto repentance; therefore he
drove men to repentance, as a shepherd drives his sheep from danger.
It is as if He thought, since you believe that you are righteous in that
ye have not laid carnally with other than thy wife, I will prove to you
that you all have laid carnally with other than your wife; you are all
adulterers:
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old
time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a
woman to lust after her hath committed adultery
with her already in his heart.
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one
of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and
cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one
of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell.
31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put
away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt. 5:27-32
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and
sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
209
the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the
joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts
and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature
that is not manifest in his sight, but all things are
naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom
we have to do. Heb. 4:12,13
The striking accusation is that if a man only with his eye looks upon a
woman to lust after her—to contemplate even the smallest mental
initiative to think of seeing through the clothing, undressing the
woman, touching the woman sexually, or of proceeding into sexual
contact with the woman—that man is guilty of committing adultery.
He then emphasizes his ocular comment by saying, “If thy eye offend
thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body
should be cast into hell.” Jesus accused every man who has ever
looked upon a woman with sinful pleasure (lust) of committing
adultery with that woman.
That man broke the Seventh
Commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery—Is any exempt?
Jesus intended to convict all; His purpose of course was to call all
men to repentance. He did just that.
Adultery is the primary cause of marital dissension; although
the complaints on legal suits often evade mentioning it. It is the most
common breach of the marriage covenant. The Law of Moses
protected the marriage covenant in the case of adultery. The adulterer
and adulteress were to put to death. It was that simple. When the
death penalty was no longer practiced—the State of Israel having lost
its authority, or because of apostasy—men employed the death
penalty in a different way, excommunication; in other words divorce.
To the human mind this was equal to capital punishment. Many
believe that life in prison is equal to the death penalty since society
has eternally excommunicated the social violator.
Some
denominations actually teach that in the case of infidelity in the
marriage bond: the innocent partner has the right to put to death the
offender by executing a divorce, or suing for the divorce. They
actually teach that divorce is a form of death:
Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract
[engagement], being detected before marriage,
210
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve
that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage,
it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a
divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if
the offending party were dead.209
One must ask: Does this death-divorce doctrine preach Sola Gratia?
Certainly not! If your doctrine of divorce puts the sinning partner
outside the realm of God’s Grace, i.e. that the marriage can never be
saved, reconciled, you are teaching a doctrine that is anathema to the
Gospel of Christ. As we will see the analogy of marriage in the N.T.
is likened to the Salvation of Jehovah God. If you believe that
divorce can end any creation-marriage, i.e. any-first-marriage-thisside-of-death, then you have a conflicting belief with the Gospel of
Salvation taught by the Lord Jesus Christ. The Salvation of God is by
grace through faith and not of works. Our marriage to Christ is a
great mystery (Eph.5); it is an analogy of our salvation by grace to
God and His Son Jesus Christ. Oh, so Great Salvation! The very
meaning of the word Salvation teaches perfect safety. Should we
commit some sin and depart from the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
for a time, we can be assured that He will never leave us or forsake
us. He will never divorce you or me. He will never divorce any
believer and no man shall pluck us out of His hand. He will wait
your return, or may let you sleep, i.e. permit you to die. The Apostle
Paul counseled the innocent partner to peacefully wait for the return
of the sinning partner: “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou
shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou
shalt save thy wife?” If any creation-marriage can be put asunder
then the Salvation of God; Christ’s marriage to the believer (“For we
are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones”) can be put
asunder. That divorce doctrine equates that the Salvation of God can
be lost because of sinful works and if that is the case you are
confessing to a doctrine that you obviously gained your Salvation—
your marriage to Christ—by good works. If one believes they can
loose Salvation by evil works, then you believe that you can gain
Salvation by good works. You cannot have it both ways: “What
therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Only
Legalism teaches divorce. The foundation of divorce is the Law. The
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
211
foundation of permanency-marriage is Grace; it completely
contradicts the Law to the minutest degree.
As the Sermon pointed out, man practiced secret hatred—a
system of avoidance—rather than exercise his desire to kill his
brother he found ways to raise “cain” rather than act like Cain, i.e. he
now cursed his brother. In the thoughts of his heart and a decision of
his will, he actually violently killed his brother. The same is true of
committing adultery. The act of looking upon a woman with lust was
an evil propensity toward adultery. The heart of man is laden with
adultery. The eye is full of adultery—merchants employing the
visual power of TV and photographic print will use the sensual
female figure to sell almost anything in our modern world—The
system of avoidance that surrounded murder was intricate; that same
system encircled adultery, and was intricately even more creative.
Here again Jesus proves that even though a man avoided physical
adultery, his lustful look was the act of adultery; all men are
adulterers. Adultery is a capital crime.
Matthew 5:31,32 Divorce Text
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But
I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his
wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her
to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her
that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt. 5:31,32
Before we exposit this text one must at least honor the
context of these verses with the previous four verses:
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you,
That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his
heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that
one of thy members should perish, and not that thy
whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right
212
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for
it is profitable for thee that one of thy members
should perish, and not that thy whole body should be
cast into hell. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put
away his wife, let him give her a writing of
divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever
shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.
Matt. 5:27-32
So the context of the famous divorce text in the Sermon On The
Mount is literally connected to the pericope on murder and adultery.
This fact must play a significant role in this matter. Another point to
mention before we reach into the truths of the text is to note that the
writer is Matthew. Please note that Matthew is the only writer of the
N.T. who offers the most controversial “exception clause” into the
dialogue. Therefore there are no other sources to reference the
exception clause in Scripture then those already mentioned in
Matthew—The exception clauses belong exclusively to Matthew.
Does Matthew count as his own witness to the exception clause? Is
the reader willing to consider this thought? I personally believe that
the exception clause even though used twice by Matthew is a single
obscure text, i.e. a single text without reference. Therefore any effort
at exegesis must honor the rules of hermeneutics for interpreting
obscure texts: (1) The principal for the preference of the clearest
interpretation, (2) The principal of the unity of the sense of Scripture,
(3) The principal of the analogy of the faith.210 The modern student
must be circumspect here to avoid carrying his contemporary
understanding of civil legal divorce into this obscure text. So dear
reader, please stop for a moment and remember that Scripture
interprets Scripture (scriptura sacra sui ipsius intrepres).
The person that holds to a non-permanency-marriage
doctrine must address another important consideration which is
referred to as the Premium of Adultery—this means that the exception
clause offers a loop hole in the otherwise permanency doctrine that
gives the advantage to the spouse who wants to terminate the
marriage, i.e. that spouse can simply commit adultery with the person
they want to remarry, and cause the innocent mate to sue for a
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
213
divorce on the only (supposed) permitted grounds for divorce
(adultery)—this very idea has entered into the mind of several people
that I have personally counseled. I find it incredible that here in the
middle of Jesus’ severe denunciation of murder and adultery that the
modern interpreter finds adultery to be an advantage to the person
who desires to terminate a marriage covenant. I ask you dear reader
one simple question: “Did Jesus permit and offer any exception
clause for murder, or for any other crime?” Thou shalt not commit
adultery; Thou shalt not kill; are the words of God. I’m certain that
Jesus never taught such a corrupt doctrine: The Premium of Adultery.
He was teaching men the full meaning of the Law of Moses. He
explicitly stated, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill.” So I am
certain that what Matthew recorded was not a premium to commit
adultery; it certainly means something else.
During the time of our Lord the Jewish courts according to
Edersheim would, "unquestionably allow divorce on almost any
grounds." Explaining the difference between Christ and the two
rabbi’s of the day, Shammai the conservative, i.e., divorce for
unchastity, and Hillel the liberal, i.e., divorce for every cause,
Edersheim writes:
And the Jewish Law unquestionably allowed divorce
on almost any grounds; the difference being, not as
to what was lawful, but on what grounds a man
should set the Law in motion, and make use of the
absolute liberty which it accorded him. Hence, it is a
serious mistake on the part of Commentators
[Christian] to set the teaching of Christ on this
subject by the side of that of Shammai.
But the School of Hillel proceeded on different
principles. It took the words, 'matter of shame' in
the widest possible sense, and declared it sufficient
ground for divorce if a woman had spoiled her
husband’s dinner. Rabbi Akiba thought, that the
words, 'if she find no favour in his eyes,' implied that
it was sufficient if a man had found another woman
more attractive than his wife. All agreed that moral
214
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
blame made divorce a duty, and that in such cases a
woman should not be taken back; according to the
Mishnah, if they transgressed against the Law of
Moses or of Israel. The former is explained as
implying a breach of the laws of tithing, of setting
apart the first of the dough, and of purification. The
latter is explained as referring to such offences as
that of going in public with uncovered head, of
spinning in the public streets, or entering into talk
with men, to which others add, that of brawling, or
of disrespectfully speaking of her husband's parents
in his presence. A troublesome, or quarrelsome wife
might certainly be sent away; and ill repute, or
childlessness (during ten years) were also regarded
as valid grounds of divorce.211
On the other hand the conservative rabbi, Shammai, set
unchastity or adultery as the only legal ground to secure a divorce; for
which Moses of course required the stoning to death of both guilty
partners. But the Law required every capital offense to be witnessed,
"One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for
any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or
at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established,"
(Deut. 19:15). Therefore in order to execute the penalty of the Law
the husband, or his acquaintance would have to literally catch his
wife in the act. This would prove almost impossible. Sexual relations
of the married are a private act, and adultery is even more private and
secretive. The intrigue of privacy and mystery that surround adultery
are the very elements that make up the definition of adultery.
Without the secrecy element adultery would not be possible.
Therefore it would be near impossible to prove the act of adultery
was actually committed. Stoning for adultery was most likely very
uncommon, however adultery was probably more common.
In (John 8:1-11) the scribes and Pharisees claimed that the
woman they arrested was taken in adultery. If this was true where
was her male counterpart, the adulterer. They failed to meet the
criteria of the Law, and consequently Jesus threw the case out of
court. First of all they wanted to stone the woman without a trial.
They did not present the two witnesses. But the real problem with
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
215
their story was that the adulterer was missing. The case against the
woman could not be proven without the male counterpart. The real
possibility was that the woman had a reputation for adultery, but
these men could not prove it. That was exactly what the dilemma of
adultery was all about. The reason for the dilemma of adultery is that
a man whose wife secretly committed adultery may have conceived
child by adultery. The man then would have a wife who was with
child of another man, the adulterer. Without this knowledge the
innocent husband would be required to raise this child even to calling
it his own. The elements of adultery, or even the suspicion of
adultery have the gravest consequences for the man. A woman,
however, never has this total fear. She knows the man, or possible
men that impregnated her. The mystery of iniquity is that a woman
could conceive a child by adultery and her husband probably would
never know. The woman alone can guarantee the knowledge of the
father, i.e. before the day of DNA testing. When the man is
distressed with doubt of his wife's fidelity, he is overcome with what
the Scripture refers to as the spirit of jealousy. Today this same spirit
of jealousy may enter into a marriage relationship; for which moderns
have no solution, save DNA testing; certainly a difficult test for the
jealous husband to obtain. The ancients however had a remedy.
During the period of the tabernacle God provided a test for
the woman who was suspected of adultery; and if she was with child
the husband could be assured that he was the father. The test was to
ensure her innocence in the event her husband brought false
accusation against her. Like the river ordeal of the ancient codes the
Law of Moses provided a similar examination:
11 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
12 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto
them, If any man's wife go aside, and commit a
trespass against him,
13 And a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid
from the eyes of her husband, and be kept close, and
she be defiled, and there be no witness against her,
neither she be taken with the manner;
14 And the spirit of jealousy come upon him, and
he be jealous of his wife, and she be defiled: or if the
216
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
spirit of jealousy come upon him, and he be jealous
of his wife, and she be not defiled:
15 Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest,
and he shall bring her offering for her, the tenth part
of an ephah of barley meal; he shall pour no oil upon
it, nor put frankincense thereon; for it is an offering
of jealousy, an offering of memorial, bringing
iniquity to remembrance.
16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her
before the LORD:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen
vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the
tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the
water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the
LORD, and uncover the woman's head, and put the
offering of memorial in her hands, which is the
jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his
hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:
19 And the priest shall charge her by an oath, and
say unto the woman, If no man have lain with thee,
and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness with
another instead of thy husband, be thou free from
this bitter water that causeth the curse:
20 But if thou hast gone aside to another instead of
thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man
have lain with thee beside thine husband:
21 Then the priest shall charge the woman with an
oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the
woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath
among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy
thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell;
22 And this water that causeth the curse shall go
into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy
thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen.
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a book,
and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:
24 And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter
water that causeth the curse: and the water that
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
217
causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become
bitter.
25 Then the priest shall take the jealousy offering
out of the woman's hand, and shall wave the offering
before the LORD, and offer it upon the altar:
26 And the priest shall take an handful of the
offering, even the memorial thereof, and burn it
upon the altar, and afterward shall cause the woman
to drink the water.
27 And when he hath made her to drink the water,
then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and
have done trespass against her husband, that the
water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and
become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her
thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse
among her people.
28 And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean;
then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed.
29 This is the law of jealousies, when a wife goeth
aside to another instead of her husband, and is
defiled;
30 Or when the spirit of jealousy cometh upon him,
and he be jealous over his wife, and shall set the
woman before the LORD, and the priest shall
execute upon her all this law.
31 Then shall the man be guiltless from iniquity,
and this woman shall bear her iniquity.
(Numb. 5:11-31)
The dilemma that surrounds adultery is manifest in this law. One
would wonder if the law was ever exercised, not just because of the
required dust from the floor of the tabernacle, but also for the
intricate difficulty of the law. In all probability just the inquisition
would bring out the truth: the accused would either plead her
innocence, or if guilty she would confess her sin. This all contributed
to the problems associated with adultery, problems for the guilty, the
innocent, the suspected, and for the jealous one.
There is no divorce provision in the Law for adultery. If
adultery was committed the only solution of the Law was death. The
218
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
(èrwat dabar) the unclean thing, certainly was not adultery, or for that
fact it was not even the suspicion of adultery as noted.
The myriad of offences which permitted divorce were in all
actuality nothing more than what Edersheim said, "The Jewish Law
unquestionably allowed divorce on almost any grounds (except
adultery); the difference being, not as to what was lawful, but on what
grounds a man should set the Law in motion, and make use of the
absolute liberty which it accorded him." Was it possible that because
of man's design of adultery avoidance he created a grocery list of
reasons to set the law in motion—In other words he was using his
divorce privilege to actually commit adultery “legally”, i.e. these
minor offences became a Premium of Offences to Commit Adultery;
so he could divorce his wife instead of committing the act of adultery
with the woman he was lusting.
As stated here Rabbi Akiba permitted divorce if a man
found a woman more attractive than his wife. If this was the case
men did not have to worry about committing adultery. If he lusted
after another woman he only had to divorce his wife—perhaps for
some trivial matter—and marry the woman he wanted to take by
adultery. He could do this even if he was coveting another man's
wife. Herod Antipas was accused of exactly this act, although there
is evidence that Herodias had motives of her own to enter into the
incestuous adulterous relationship. The surprising thing was that man
actually believed he had solved the problem of the prohibition of
committing adultery by promulgating laws that permitted divorce for
every cause. Certainly if a man suspected his wife of committing
adultery, he only had to apply this interpretation of the Law, and
divorce his wife for the suspicion of adultery. But it appears that the
Lord Jesus Christ was about to challenge all their permissiveness, and
drive the spear of repentance deep into their heart of hearts. He was
about to divide to the bone and marrow, and to the soul and spirit. He
was about to reveal to each man that the sin of adultery was much
more extensive than any had imagined:
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement; but I
say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
219
commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that
is divorced committeth adultery.
Matt. 5:31,32
Here Jesus clearly cuts the liberal divorce school off at the pass. By
making marriage a permanent contract, except for Matthew’s
understanding of fornication, Jesus forbids the putting away of any
woman for any matter, whatsoever. Dear reader please read this
treatise Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage
completely: the knowledge of Matthew’s understanding of
fornication is absolutely critical to understanding the doctrine of
divorce and the argument of this book. I believe that the two
definitions of the word fornication that is given by Matthew are the
only possible definitions of the word found in Matthew’s two
divorce logions.
The latest figures claim that sixty percent of modern
American marriages are destined to the divorce court. Those suing
for divorce customarily charge their spouse with irreconcilably
differences, or cruel and abusive treatment among other things,
although adultery is probably the principal cause. The difficulty of
suing for adultery has been stated, the secrecy of sin makes it difficult
to prove. On the other hand the suspicion of adultery, jealousy,
according to Solomon "is as cruel as the grave," (Song 8:6). Jealousy
may reflect: (1) the evil suspicion of the husband, or (2) the unproven
knowledge of the truth. If adultery has been committed and the
dreaded fear is true, the innocent partner tastes of death. If adultery
did not exist, the suspected innocent partner suffers a measure of
death; yes, jealousy is a cruel as the grave. Adultery is the primary
evil of marriage, the primary cause of divorce. But you will not read
this on most divorce complaints.
And so it was in the time of Christ. The Rabbi Hillel
permitted divorce for every cause, but he does not mention jealousy.
The "law of jealousy" was no longer an option, if in fact it was ever
practiced. If a man believed he had the right to put away his wife
when his eye beheld a woman who was more pleasing to him, he
certainly would divorce a wife who he suspected of infidelity. Here
in (Matt. 5:31,32) we hear Jesus say (apart from the exception clause
which we will address in the Matt. 19 logion), that divorce is
forbidden, and that any remarriage following divorce is adultery. In
220
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
this Sermon Jesus is teaching that the depravity of the heart of man.
He cites the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", then he
aggressively reveals the heart of man as a killer. He continues with
the Seventh Commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery", and
now proves that all men are guilty of adultery, “Whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already
in his heart.” In the past the Jews understood the Law and they
committed their adultery behind the cloak of the permissive divorce
laws of the rabbis. Now Jesus strips these hypocrites naked, divorce
with remarriage is adultery. He forbid divorce, save for the
Matthew’s exception clause.
The modern understanding of the exception clause in (Matt.
5:32) does not harmonize with the context of the Sermon, and this
disparity has led some, to even go as far as, to suspect the text. This
lack of harmony is caused by the student attempting to read his
modern understanding of civil divorce into the N.T. text. There are
two possible harmonies in understanding the exception clause; I have
been developing those options since the first word of this book.
Stuart L.Tyson wrote a little book, The teaching of our Lord as to the
Indissolubility of Marriage, where he sternly defends the doctrine of
permanency-marriage. He argues to defend the teaching of Jesus
regarding marriage. He understands Jesus to teach the absolute
permanency of marriage this side of death; and this fact causes him to
struggle with the exception clause in both (Matt. 5:32;19:9). His
sincere and rigorous effort to harmonize the divorce texts with the
teaching of Jesus drives him to suspect those very texts. He obviously
is attempting to interpret the exception clause with a modern view of
civil divorce. Donald W. Shaner quotes Tyson:
Tyson does not see how the statements of Matthew
attributed to Jesus (5:32; 19:9) can be brought into
accord with the previously mentioned biblical
authors. "...if Christ really uttered these words [the
exception clause], so far from elevating the
conception of marriage, He has not raised it one whit
higher than the level of Moses, whereas the very
purpose of His previous words [Matt. 5] is to
contrast His teaching with that of Moses!" And to
Mark's question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
221
his wife?," requiring a direct Yes or No, Matthew
adds "for every cause?," presupposing his
acceptance of the Deuteronomic Law, but asking
him to decide for either the strict or liberal view of
certain Rabbis. Jesus, by including the exception of
adultery, seems to accept the view of Shammai,
rather than abrogating the Mosaic law. If so, it is
difficult to understand the disciples' protest (vs. 10),
since it was merely a reaffirmation of a Jewish
doctrine accepted by a large segment of the
population. The only conclusion is that the
exception clause is an interpolation due to a JewishChristian compiler or editor.
In Matt. 5:32 Jesus also simply confirms the
Old Testament teaching; this is contradictory to the
structure of the verse which has Christ saying, "But
I say unto you," in contrast to the Mosaic law in the
preceding verse. The second half of the verse, "and
whosoever shall marry her that hath been put away
committeth adultery," is almost verbatim with the
last portion of Luke 16:18. The anarthrous participle
απoλελυμεvηv, occurring in both Gospels, denotes
"... any woman divorced for any cause whatever."
Luke is consistent, but the only way to harmonize
Matthew is to place the exception clause also in the
second half of the verse 32, or to eliminate it from
the first.212
Tyson wrote this is 1909 when marriage was relatively sound in our
country. He had so much difficulty with the exception clauses of
Matthew that he believed that Jesus, whose teaching of marriage was
ablaze with the doctrine of permanency, certainly could not have
spoken them. I am very surprised that today most scholars, pastors,
students, and confessed Bible believers seem to have no difficulty
with the apparent blatant contradiction of the divorce texts and Jesus’
teaching on permanency-marriage.
Tyson was not a
fundamentalist—he was a southern Episcopalian—nevertheless even
in 1909 this gentleman was having serious trouble thinking through
222
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
these texts. It is just remarkable today that from student to scholar
our generation does not at least admit to the difficulty and
contradiction of the modern interpretation that the exception clause
permits man to put asunder that which God joined together.
Matthew’s text is absolutely an obscure text, and if our generation
does not make that admission then this writer suspects not the
Matthean text, but I suspect the honesty of the modern students,
pastors, and scholars—I adamantly suspect our generation of
prophets. In order to understand the exception clauses one must put
himself completely back into the exact time of the record of the N.T.
When any honest person considers exactly what Matthew understood
about exceptions and his use of the word fornication as he himself
admits in his writings then the student, pastor, and scholar will
understand the text in its fullness.
The major context of (Matt. 5:32) declares that Jesus was
sternly objecting to the Jew’s understanding of the Law. He was
explicitly teaching the true meaning of the terms, kill, adultery, and to
forswear. In each case His teaching is unambiguous and without any
exceptions. Yet, in the discussion of adultery there seems to be an
unusual contradictory statement. A statement that on initial
examination appears to challenge the entire context of the pericope,
i.e., His objection to the Jew’s understanding of the Law of Adultery,
—adultery could only be committed if the physical act took place—
in other words to the Jews the act of thinking adultery was no crime;
yet Jesus clearly states that to think adultery is a crime. Since, to
some, the modern interpretation of the exception clause permits
divorce for adultery this fact absolutely qualifies the exception clause
to be defined as an obscure text: murder is murder, and adultery is
adultery. When Jesus describes murder there is no question, no
exception to his dialogue; the same is true of adultery, and to
forswear. So the evidence that the exception clause is an obscure text
cannot be denied. The context must dictate the meaning of the
obscure text; like it or not. As the Reformers argued with Rome,
“Scripture must interpret Scripture.” Rome was not the exclusive
interpreter of Scripture. The modern interpretation of the State civil
marriage and divorce laws cannot dictate the interpretation of the
exception clause to the Church. Before we directly tackle the
exception clause in Matt. 19:9 we must first gather the other Scripture
data on the subject.
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
223
Mark 10:1-12
And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away
his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery
against her. And if a woman shall put away her
husband, and be married to another, she committeth
adultery.
Mark 10:11,12
In Mark, Jesus reiterates the prohibition of divorce; whereas
in (Matt.) Jesus charged the man who divorced his wife with causing
his wife to commit adultery, and likewise He charged the man who
married a divorced woman with committing adultery. Here in (Mark
10) He charged the man who divorces his wife and remarries with
adultery and likewise He charges any woman who would do the same
with adultery. There is no question that apart from Matthew’s
exception clauses Jesus clearly prohibited divorce—this writer
believes that Jesus forbid divorce in Matthew as well; a thought that
embraces the teaching that Jesus is consistent.
It is of extreme interest to this writer that an apology has been
developed to permit Mark to make this very obvious editing
regarding the woman. The argument states that Mark was writing
with the Gentile-Christians in mind, since the Gentiles permitted the
woman the right to sue for divorce—an act quite foreign to the Jew.
Since the commentators are swift to apologize for Mark my questions
is: Why not give Matthew some space in his understanding of
fornication in the divorce texts?
Luke 16:18
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth
another, committeth adultery; and whosoever
marrieth her that is put away from her husband,
committeth adultery.
So again here we have, without the exception clause, the absolute
prohibition of divorce. Jesus was adamant, He forbid divorce. Jesus
absolutely taught that marriage is permanent. We will now enter that
224
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
famous battlefield (Matthew 5:32; 19:9), the Gettysburg of the
Divorce-War. Let us proceed by examining the entire battlefield.
Romans 7:1-3 A Case For Permanency
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that
know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over
a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound
by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if
the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of
her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be
married to another man, she shall be called an
adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free
from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though
she be married to another man.
Rom. 7:1-3
Our conscience is pricked with these words. They are so clear. The
thought of permanency is so profound and so simple. This verse has
created great difficulty for the "not permanency" camp. It clearly
teaches permanency, causing the "not permanency" camp to cry,
"But, But, But." The "permanency camp" realizes that this text is an
illustration to explain a Christian's relation to the Law. As a widow is
free from the law of her husband and free to remarry, so the Christian
is no longer bound by the Law, but is free to marry another, i.e.
Christ. The "not permanency" camp cries that this text is just an
illustration, it is not a divorce text. They cry that the societies of the
Biblical text understood a doctrine of marriage that permitted divorce.
Nevertheless, the illustrator, Paul, chose to dissolve marriage only by
death, and that point must be addressed. From this verse it can be
argued that Paul personally believed in a "permanency-marriage"
doctrine; and as we shall see Paul believed in absolute permanency,
as did Christ. This is a difficult thought to those looking for license
to divorce; so as for the "not permanency" camp we see them
laboring to convert Paul to their false doctrine. They cry that the
Jews according to the law practiced divorce and remarriage as
expounded in (Deut. 24:1-4) but this text was thoroughly discussed in
Chapter 4 of this book—dear reader please keep in mind that Jesus
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
225
rejected the Deuteronomy text and relegated it to a mere concession
of Moses. Can any reader be sure that Paul wrote this text with the
understanding that he was only making a general illustration of
binding and loosening elements of the law? I believe that Paul’s
other writings combined with this text, will prove that creationmarriage, permanency marriage, was his view of sound doctrine. The
next text in our discovery is found in I Corinthians.
I Corinthians 5:1-5 Fornication Means Incest
1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication
among you, and such fornication as is not so much
as named among the Gentiles, that one should have
his father's wife.
2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather
mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be
taken away from among you.
3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in
spirit, have judged already, as though I were present,
concerning him that hath so done this deed,
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are
gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of
our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved
in the day of the Lord Jesus.
I Cor. 5:1-5
The Unlawful Marriage school, the incest view, has the right
to claim this as a proof text in support of their understanding of
porneia. The Corinthian church obviously did not get the message of
Acts 15 and 21; reasoning that since they were not under the law they
were free from all aspects of the law. The interpretation of porneia in
this context is not disputed. A man in the church had married his
father’s wife—the man’s stepmother. It is only probable to assume
that his father was dead. This was a clear violation of the Jerusalem
Decree where fornication (incestuous marriage) was forbidden. Paul
is alarmed. His distress is exasperated by the fact that the entire
church had not only approved the unlawful marriage, but they were
glorying in it, i.e. they were puffed up (literally proud of it).
226
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Consequently Paul lashes out with his most severe N.T. censure, "In
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and
my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an
one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
The professed believer, the fornicator, violated Leviticus 18:8
The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy
father’s nakedness. Paul’s doctrine is without question; he saw this
marriage as a fornication-marriage that must be put away. This was
an unlawful marriage and Paul screamed it must be put away (divorce
was immediate). So here in Corinth divorce was permitted for the
exception, incest. Let us continue to follow Paul as he continues
teaching his doctrine of creation-marriage.
I Corinthian 6:15-18 Permanency and the Body Of Christ
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of
Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and
make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to
an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be
one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is
without the body; but he that committeth fornication
sinneth against his own body. I Cor. 6:15-18
This text suggests that the Corinthian church was perhaps as corrupt
as any church in history. Heth and Wenham commenting on I
Corinthians 7:2 (Nevertheless to avoid fornication), see a reference to
I Corinthians six: "As Fee suggests, the 'because of immoralities'
(nevertheless, to avoid fornication, KJV) in verse 2 is probably a
direct reference back to 6:12-20 where men, in all probability
married, were going to the house of prostitutes (and possibly even at
the suggestion of their ascetic wives?).213 A doctrine existed in the
Corinthian Church that permitted their men to have free sexual
relations with the many prostitutes of that city. Paul cries out against
this immorality, declaring that the believer’s body—contrary to the
Corinthian opinion—experienced salvation in Christ equally as his
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
227
spirit. The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. The body
will experience redemption (resurrection). A believer's body is a
member of Christ's body; it is a temple. By having sexual union with
harlots, a believer was taking the members of Christ and uniting them
to the harlot. In (I Cor. 6:18) Paul exhorts them to flee this kind of
fornication. The union of Christ’s body with a harlot is absolutely
forbidden, because he that is joined to a harlot is one with a harlot,
"For two, saith he, shall be one flesh." We should be one spirit and
one flesh with Christ. Fornication is a sin against oneself.
Fornication is a sin with oneself. Fornication should not be
committed in the temple of God, and your body is the temple of God
the Holy Spirit. You are no longer own your body, it has been bought
(redeemed) by another. Bought with a price, the precious blood of
the Lamb of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who taketh away
the sin of the world.
The Erasmian's draw an unusual conclusion from this text.
Removing this text from the context of the Corinthian practice of a
free permission to visit the brothel, they conclude that when a married
person unites with a harlot something beside fornication has taken
place. With the act of fornication their creation-marriage died,
because their act created a new union. They reason that since
fornication required them to unite with another, this could only be
accomplished by dissolving the original union. This idea should be
stricken from the record—to believe this is to deny the power of the
Gospel that unites the believer to Christ forever. The text does not
honor the thought of dissolution of marriage. It is shear conjecture.
Note that in spite of their sin, Paul indicates that all is well. He
reaches in to salvage them, wholly. For this they have been aptly
chided, and called on to repent; being offered complete Christian
restoration: for after he chided them he proclaims that they have been
“bought with a price,” brought means they are redeemed.
Contrary to the Erasmian's who see the dissolution of
marriage in this text, the text clearly supports the permanency of
marriage even in the event of fornication, i.e., in this case their unions
with harlots. Paul clearly extends complete salvation to these sinning
Corinthians. "You are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in
your body and in your spirit, which are God's." There is absolutely
no mention of these men losing their wives, or salvation in this text.
Their wives are for some reason unusually silent. Was it in fact that
228
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
because they were ascetic they were refraining from conjugal
reciprocation; did they believed abstinence was holiness? Well,
chapter seven seems to answer that question in the affirmative.
Nevertheless, chapter six is a victory for the permanency camp.
I Corinthians 7 Marriage’s Moving Chapter
As we proceed to view the battle field at Gettysburg, Matt.
5:32; 19:9, we must first pass “marriages moving chapter.” Here in I
Cor. 7 we will find another field in this battleground of the "not
permanency" camp. These forty verses are intertwined into a strong
rope anchoring the text to the doctrine of permanency. There is but
one possible thread that seems to give some hope to the "not
permanency" group: verse 15. But before we discuss that verse let us
examine each preceding verse of this chapter:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto
me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
I Cor. 7:1
Paul begins his answer to their question—note the discussion
of (I Cor.6)—by stating his primary position on marriage: “It is good
for a man not to touch a woman.” Paul's voluntary celibacy is his
primary platform and verses (7,8,25,26,40) reflect that. He appears to
directly reference (Matthew 19:11,12) the eunuch reference: “All
men cannot receive this saying, except they to whom it is given.”
Paul was one who made himself a eunuch for the kingdoms sake. He
was able to receive the saying of Jesus. We will see that this chapter
resounds the permanency view of Matthew 19: 4-6. Gordon Fee
understands that the "to touch" is a reference to marriage. The word
in classical Greek literature, and in the Greek O.T., is a figurative
expression for sexual intercourse. The question the church obviously
presented: Is it good for a man to abstain from sexual relations with a
woman.' 214 Therefore the real question of the text is not fornication
but it is a question of marriage. In other words Paul is saying that
although he advises that men practice celibacy, nevertheless, because
of strong sexual passions that they evidence, "it is better to marry
then to burn," (v.9).
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
229
It also seems that there was a spirit of asceticism in the
Corinthian church: some women were ascetic while their husbands
were not, and vise versa. As stated in chapter 6 some ascetic women
appeared to permit their husbands to visit the brothel.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man
have his own wife, and let every woman have her
own husband.
I Cor. 7:2
Paul will address several parties throughout this chapter.
Here he simply permits marriage and enforces conjugal liberty in
monogamous marriage: "own wife and own husband." This implies
full conjugal rights and a right to full sexual satisfaction of the
marriage bed. Paul's is forced to explain:
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due
benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the
husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the
husband: and likewise also the husband hath not
power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with
consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to
fasting and prayer; and come together again, that
Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
I Cor. 7:3-5
Paul, a single man, has a marvelous grasp of marital relations
and a full understanding of copulation. Full sexual satisfaction of the
marriage partners is their right. He clearly teaches that sexual
satisfaction is in the power of each other partner. Impotence may not
be the problem of the partner diagnosed with the malady. Paul goes
as far as to make sexual satisfaction a moral right; he admonishes the
partners not to defraud one another. The only room Paul provides for
avoiding a partner is a period of fasting created by the burden to pray.
Certainly one cannot fast for a long period of time. But if a partner
determines to fast the abstinence from conjugal rights is permitted
during the fast. Fasting in the Scriptures meant to go without eating,
not a mere abstinence of certain foods; it was the abstinence of all
230
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
food—I believe that the act of fasting is only dictated by the urgency
to pray; in other words the only reason a man or woman fasts is
because they are too busy praying—The period of fasting here was
obviously a relatively short, other wise Paul states that there is no
room for asceticism in marriage.
Paul moves away from the married for a moment, and now
addresses the unmarried and widows:
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of
commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself.
But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after
this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is
good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is
better to marry than to burn.
I Cor. 7:6-9
Paul, in this parenthetical note, states that what he is about to
say is not a commandment; but as you will see a few moments later
he speaks by commandment. Paul obviously sees celibacy as a
voluntary or as a special gift from God as in Matthew 19:11,12. He
then gives his personal testimony, that he is one who has been given a
special grace, he is celibate, but he goes on to permit others to marry.
This is a marriage text. Paul stresses his personal belief that celibacy
is his preference for all men. He then defines the eligible for
marriage as the unmarried and the widows. Note here that Paul
specifically sees unmarried people as never-been-married-people or
those with a dead partner. But, Paul does not stop there. He
recommends marriage over burning in sexual desire; for if burning is
not cooled, it will foster fornication. Paul will now reverse his role as
a guidance counselor and speak as a prophet of the living God:
10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but
the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her
husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried,
or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the
husband put away his wife.
I Cor. 7:10-11
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
231
This text solidly embraces permanency. Note: This is not
Paul’s command, it is the actual command of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Paul explicitly tells us this: “And unto the married I command, yet
not I, but the Lord.” Paul makes no exceptions for divorce. He
interprets the Gospel texts of Jesus perfectly; he is in perfect
agreement with the Lord Jesus Christ. I see this text as a clear
repudiation of remarriage after divorce or during the life of a living
partner, regardless of any condition—Absolutely without Exception.
Even if as some writers believe, that depart refers to divorce then
there is again an unmistakable command not to remarry.215 The word
depart here could mean to separate without divorce; regardless, the
idea of permanency-marriage is the focus of this text. The husband is
commanded by God not to put away (divorce) his wife. It is as if
Paul is exclaiming Jesus’ permanency doctrine that he preached to the
Pharisees and His disciples: “What therefore God hath joined
together, let not man put asunder.” Paul certainly knew and
understood what Jesus taught as Paul himself now teaches the same
doctrine of permanency-creation-marriage here in Corinth. The
other important doctrine here is the doctrine of reconciliation that
must remain a permanent option for this N.T. marriage scenario;
reconciliation speaks of Salvation by Grace Alone. Therefore we can
conclude that Jesus, Mark, Luke, and Paul are in complete agreement,
the only obscure text belongs to Matthew and we have labored at this
entire dissertation to show that Matthew is also in full agreement with
all the other writers of the sacred page—providing you understand
Matthew’s meaning of fornication. Let us go on to the city of boots;
the battle draweth nigh.
12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any
brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be
pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her
away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that
believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with
her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the
wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the
232
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
husband: else were your children unclean; but now
ICor.7:12-14
are they holy.
The question of the mixed marriage, the believer with the
unbeliever surfaced in Corinth. Paul only instructs the believer. His
primary instruction is that the believer should not put away the
unbeliever. He does indicate that if the unbeliever is pleased to
remain in the union, then that union is holy, or sanctified. The
believer is commanded to stay with the marriage; it is the unbeliever
who is not commanded. The unbeliever appears to have the right to
control the outcome of the marriage. Paul gives the unbeliever the
right of choice. If the unbeliever is pleased to remain, then he/she
may do as he/she pleases. The choice is entirely with the unbeliever.
The believer must permit the unbeliever the choice. Mixed marriages
are holy in these circumstances; thus the children are not unclean but
holy
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A
brother or a sister is not under bondage in such
cases: but God hath called us to peace. I Cor. 7:15
The believer must permit the unbeliever the choice. This
coincides with I Cor. 5:12 "For what have I to do to judge them also
that are outside?" The believer, like Paul, cannot judge them that are
"outside." The unbeliever has the freedom to make the choice; and
since the unbeliever has the free choice to depart, the believer then
has the responsibility to permit that departure, peacefully. As we said
earlier, marriage has always invoked the man's sense of sovereignty
and ownership; his sense of authority. A believer might even argue
that the unbeliever does not have the right to depart based on Jesus
command, "Let not man put asunder," and "They twain shall be one
flesh." Although this is so, it is nevertheless true that God permits
man the right to choose—even if the choice is sinful or leads to his
destruction—“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord
shall be saved." This right of choice must be extended to the
unbelieving partner regarding their marriage. The doctrine of
marriage and the doctrine of Salvation are very similar.
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
233
The Scriptures are clear in teaching that the believer is not
under bondage to force the unbeliever to stay. He/she must not
thwart that free choice. The unbeliever must be permitted to leave in
peace. In God-speed if you will. The believer is not bound to force
the unbeliever to remain, however the believer is bound to permit the
unbeliever to leave in peace with the hope of a future restoration;
always restoration and reconciliation, the mark of Salvation. The
Christian must extend to the unbeliever the invitation to return to the
marriage bond and must remain unmarried as taught in (v. 10,11) thus
permitting the indissoluble union to physically reunite. To the
believer this is the true essence of love. As with the grace of God, he
waits for the return of all unbelievers; and for wayward believers.
God keeps the door of His heart ready to open; all we have to do is
come and knock. We as pastors must teach our dear people to do the
same for the lost husband or wife. The believing partner must keep
the door of his/her heart ready to open and must keep the literal door
of his/her home ready to open. Hope must not be abandoned; hope
that the lost partner will find true repentance and faith upon their
return and be saved. What better words can be said then these:
For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt
save thy husband? Or how knowest thou, O man
whether thou shalt save thy wife?
I Cor. 7:16
The extension of love to the departed is intended to bring the
loved one to salvation, "thou shalt save thy husband, or thy wife." I
find this statement very interesting since the salvation of the departed
loved one is now the target of the believers love. He/she must pray
for the departed love one to be saved. The question this verse raises
is, When do we stop? When do we stop praying for them to return to
the Lord, and to us? This verse indicates that the believer permitted
the unbeliever to leave in peace, and with the condition that when
they return it implies the hope that they will also accept Christ as
their own personal Savior, and thus be saved. You never stop praying
for your loved ones until your, or their dying day. Therefore this
verse states that unless the unbelieving spouse returns there is to be
no remarriage for the believer this-side-of-death. Again, this verse
speaks for permanency; even if that partner is never heard from again,
or even if the believer has no knowledge of whether they are dead or
234
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
alive. This is the complete translation of Ephesians 5:25: Husbands
love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave
himself for it.—That verse could just as well read: Wives love your
husbands, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for
it.
In verses (17-26) Paul introduces a parenthetical statement
regarding the need for men to be content with their personal calling.
He mentions those called in circumcision, out of circumcision,
servants, and freemen. He speaks of virgins and then leads up to his
proposition again that celibacy is recommended but not required:
27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be
loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a
wife.
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and
if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless
such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
I Cor. 7:27-28
Paul's concept of the times in which he lived was that of
"distress", and in this state it was better for a man to remain
unmarried. Paul repeats his appeal for men to be content with their
calling: Let every man, wherein, he is called, there abide with God.
If you are bound in marriage to a wife, seek not to be loosed; if your
loosed from a wife, seek not a wife. Paul is using common language
to make a point. To be bound to a wife simply means to be married,
and to be loosed from a wife means the person is single or a widow. It
means this and nothing more. From this chapter we have shown that
the unmarried are people who have never been married, or widows
(ers). In each case where a believing married person realized the
departure of a living mate, that believer was ordered to remain
unmarried or be reconciled. An of course as Paul opened the chapter
with his it is better to marry than to burn he now continues that
theme with if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.
Heth and Wenham note that the best interpretation of virgins
in the context under discussion (v. 25-38) is that of J.K. Elliott.
"He demonstrates that these virgins are engaged
couples. In the rest of the NT 'virgin' is commonly
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
235
used of a betrothed girl (Lk. 1:27, Matt. 1:18, 23;
25:1-13; II Cor. 11:2), and throughout verses 25-38
Paul addresses the men and his special notations are
to the women (cf. vv. 28b,34). The question these
engaged couples ask Paul is whether or not to fulfill
their promises of marriage in view of the present
distress. So when Paul says in verse 28, 'But if you
should marry, you have not sinned', he is not
speaking to divorced individuals as a good number
of Erasmians suppose. He is speaking to those who
are bound by a promise of marriage (= engaged) in
verse 27. It is to this group that Paul says, 'But if
you should marry, you have not sinned' (v28a). 216
37 Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his
heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his
own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he
will keep his virgin, doeth well.
I Cor. 7:37
Following Elliott, this verse simple states that the male who
is engaged does well if he breaks the engagement and remains a
virgin. There is a sight hint here of the idea of a father having the
oversight of his virgin daughter, but this idea does not harmonize well
with the context. However, if that is what Paul is stating it does not
diminish from the proposition of this thesis and perhaps should be
discussed in another forum. Paul continues:
38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth
well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth
better.
I Cor. 7:38
Paul's conclusion regarding the engaged: Yes you can marry,
but if you remain single it is "better." Paul now returns to the others
who are loosed: widows:
The wife is bound by the law as long as her
husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is
at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in
the Lord.
I Cor. 7:39
236
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Paul repeats what he said in Romans 7:2. The point that is
very interesting to this writer is that in both cases Paul does not even
hint at any other event that could loose the marriage bond; absolutely
no exceptions. Paul teaches a permanency doctrine which is equal to
his Lord. This fact reinforces the doctrine that states: "noremarriage-this-side-of-death."
Paul gives the approval of
remarriage after the death of a partner. Here he appropriately chooses
the death of the husband. It seems that antiquity even declares that
women outlived the men. Consequently, the church as a social unit
had to manage widows, to which the NT attests. Again the widows
were admonished to remain single, and as a matter of fact they were
looked upon as worldly if they did remarry: "But the younger widows
refuse; for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they
will marry, having damnation, because they have cast off their first
faith," (I Tim. 5:11,12). Nevertheless, widows were permitted to
marry, however this is to be "only in the Lord."
Another principal teaching in the marriage doctrine of the
church is that marriage like other partnerships is to be between two
believers. A partnership between a believer and an unbeliever is
unequal: Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for
what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what
communion hath light with darkness (II Cor. 6:14).
In I Corinthians 7:39 Paul initiated that doctrine. He
permitted widows to remarry only in the Lord. This careful
instruction compounded with the regulations of widows gives
credence to the position that the NT does not make any remarriage
provision for those who believe in divorce. Before leaving these texts
let us exposit (I Tim. 3:2):
The Husband of One Wife
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of
one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given
to hospitality, apt to teach;
I Tim. 3:2
Some divorce scholars have difficulty with this text. Since
they believe in divorce—to them marriage is not permanent—they
see the rejected bishop candidate here as a man who remarried after a
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
237
divorce; i.e. more than one living wife. They interpret remarriage
after divorce to mean that the man is the husband of more than one
living wife. Some fundamental churches penalizes these men,
permitting them to be church members, but denying them any
significant position of leadership. But if you follow the treatise of
permanency-marriage and consequently absolutely deny any
remarriage-this-side-of-death you understand this text to mean
something very different. The only second marriage permitted in
Scripture is that of a widow or widower. Therefore this text is
denying the office of bishop to a man who widowed and then
remarried. If the widow in (I Tim. 5:11,12) was penalized for her
remarriage, i.e. “having damnation”, should God not penalize the
bishop/elder candidate; a pastor or deacon (Tit. 1:6), if they should
remarry after widowhood.
Ephesians 5:21-32 The Mount Everest of Marriage
As we continue to study the Gettysburg battlefield we must
observe this mountain peak. Douglas B. MacCorkle has written a
splendid commentary on Ephesians titled, God’s Special Secret. This
special secret is fully revealed in (Eph. 5:32), “This is a great mystery
but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” God’s love affair with
man culminates in his special gift of grace, i.e. permission to enter
into the life of the trinity through Christ and become one with the
Godhead in the body of Christ, His Church.217 The beauty of this
love affair is highlighted by the analogy of what we know about
permanent-creation-marriage. God choose to explain the church by
taking us pedagogically—taking us from the known to the
unknown—by first taking us to what we know, permanent-creationmarriage, then onto his new doctrine of the union of Christ and the
believer, the Church; as a marriage, literally the twain becoming one
indivisible in Christ: “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even
the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to make in
himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might
reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross” Eph 2:15ff. This
analogy of the body of Christ is the grandest truth we will ever know
about marriage. Ephesians has been called the Alps of the New
Testament, and its teaching elevates marriage to shine as from the
world’s highest peak. This truth is so fundamental to the teaching of
238
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Christ, and to our Salvation that it cannot but receive our adoration,
and deepest conviction to understand, document, protect, and
propagate. Oh, the unsearchable riches of Christ.
In the first three chapters of Ephesians Paul labors to explain
the position of the believer specifically using the terms in Christ. I
like to explain the preposition “in” by envisioning a box. The
believer is in the box. Paul emphatically states that the believer is in
the box forever, literally in heavenly places in Christ. Permanently.
This is an extremely important theological truth. This is the doctrine
of grace; Sola Gratia. To be one with Christ is to be in the box; “And
gave Him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his
body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:22,23). The
believer joined in one (married) to Christ is the Church; His body.
Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of
God.
Eph. 5:21
MacCorkle notes that a strong debate has raged over whether
this verse goes with what went before in 5:3-19 (especially 5:18,19)
or what comes after, i.e. the subject of marriage. His response is
simple, i.e. “This is indeed a transitional verse looking both ways.” I
believe he is certainly correct. Therefore the doctrine of permanentheaven-marriage begins with some practical applications of
permanent-creation-marriage. Perhaps to the chagrin of the
chauvinist type the admonition begins with: “submitting yourselves
one to another in the fear of God.” In marriage we are to submit to
each other. Paul clearly establishes the authority, i.e. the common
denominator, “in the fear of God.” The omnipotent sovereign
Everlasting God is a powerful force to reckon with, leaving no room
for insubordination. I find this verse leveling to both the husband and
the wife, and superior to what ever follows as some believe the word
“submit” only refers to the wife. Please note verse 21 precedes verse
22 which requires the husband to submit to his wife and the wife to
submit to her husband.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord.
Eph. 5:22
Again, MacCorkle catches the spirit of the submission text
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
239
with his English version of the original Greek text: “For example, the
wives are to keep submitting themselves to their own husbands in the
Lord.” He also expounds Gen. 3:16, “thy desire shall be to thy
husband, and he shall rule over thee;” stating that Paul is only
applying the Genesis marriage doctrine to having the husband rule
and administer the home. This is God’s will for the wife. The level
of subordination called for here is lower than the one previous. In a
godly manner the wife is to submit to the husband as she submits to
the Lord. MacCorkle argues that this must be a voluntary
submission; i.e. that as the Lord loves her and she submits to His care
for her, the wife is commanded to submit to her husband who cares
for her. Should her husband require her to perform an act outside of
God’s will, we must note here that she is told to submit to her
husband as she would submit to her benevolent Lord. Therefore
should her husband’s command be without the Lord’s benevolence,
she is free to follow the Lord; whatever that will mean to her
husband. This verse certainly requires the husband’s command to be
benevolent. MacCorkle makes an interesting comment: “To their
own husbands,” may seem an unnecessary statement, but only to the
naive. The track record of world-lings in this regard is an open one—
certainly some words to contemplate. The idea of the husbands
benevolence will go without saying for the husband will be
commanded by God to love his wife in benevolence to the very point
of dying for her if necessary.
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as
Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour
of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto
Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in
every thing.
Eph. 5:23, 24
The wife’s subordination is further clarified. The husband is
the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church. This
can be supported by I Cor. 11:3, “But I would have you know, that
the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the
man; and the head of Christ is God.” Christ to the church is Savior.
The church submits to its benevolent Savior. Likewise the wife is to
be subject to her own husband when he treats her as his church,
because he is her savior-type here on the earth. Benevolence is
240
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
written all over the definition of a husband that is to be obeyed.
Certainly if the husband’s commands are driven from a benevolent
heart as from the Lord then of course she is expected to obey her
husband in every thing. MacCorkle makes another fitting comment:
“No sane person would suggest that wives be as Jezebel (I Kings
21:15, 23) or Herodias” (Mk. 6:19ff).
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also
loved the church, and gave himself for it; Eph. 5:25
We now come to the clincher in the submission debate. Paul
now rolls out his big gun of submission and fires a round squarely
into the heart of every husband. Paul now defines the submission
necessary of the husband. As Christ hung on a bloody cross and died,
dying for his beloved wife, the church, every husband is commanded
to submit to God and to love his wife as Christ loved the church and
if need be, be ready give himself in death for her. This is the
matchless definition of love. Only God can define love for God is
Love. The ramification of this kind of love on the marriage bond is
infinite. MacCorkle states, “Godly loving of his wife is put in the
imperative form, a direct commandment of the Lord.” The point here
is not that the husband should just take a bullet for his wife but that
he should wear himself to the point of death for his wife if necessary;
that of course does not void the former, the bullet. Now dear reader it
also means that the forsaken believing spouse must wear themselves
out till death, if necessary, waiting for their departed love one to
return. This is biting the real bullet of death for your beloved spouse.
Oh so great love as He loved us; this is the actual Matchless Grace of
God. What a wonderful testimony of a believing spouse. What a
sacrifice!
This verse makes the analogy complete. Christ’s work in
establishing his wife the church contains the full definition of
Salvation by Grace; Sola Gratia. His remarkable work of
redemption was fully displayed in His love for his wife the church.
The Scripture states: “For when we were yet without strength, in due
time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man
will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare
to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
241
justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For
if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of
his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life
(Rom. 5:6-10).” The union of Christ with His church was sealed in
blood; a permanent marriage. The believer is literally in Christ and
Christ is in the believer. The believer is literally the body of Christ:
“And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head
over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him
that filleth all in all (Eph.1:22,23).”
Dear reader lean forward for a moment and listen. Salvation
means the eternal deliverance from all evil, i.e. the power and penalty
of sin, and to be one with Christ and God. The believer is delivered
from death both temporal and eternal. The believer becomes the body
of Christ, who rose from the dead and now lives forever. Christ’s
body will never die. He that hath the Son hath life. That means
every believer has security for eternity—Eternal Security. Marriage
is therefore a picture of eternal security. “What therefore God hath
joined together, let not man put asunder.” Marriage like the salvation
of the church is permanent, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against
it. The Doctrine of Eternal Security is identified with permanentcreation-marriage. Permanent-heaven-marriage is the doctrine of
Christ and His Church; therefore as we have taught all creationmarriages are inseparable, indissoluble, and permanent. Thus there is
no-remarriage-this-side-of-death because once married the couple is
bound until death due them part; they have become one flesh on this
earth till death due them part. Divorce of a marriage is an
impossibility. So then while both partners live on this earth there is
no other marriage for them; remarriage during the lifetime of a
married partner is adultery. The analogy that God makes between
marriage and the church dictates that as salvation is permanent and
sure, so to marriage is permanent and sure. Therefore the preacher
who promotes the doctrine of divorce is at the very same time
teaching that a believer can loose his salvation; thus teaching that
Christ will divorce the believer if He so wishes. That is a false
doctrine. The primary problem with the one who teaches that
salvation can be lost is that at the same time he is confessing to the
doctrine that a man can gain or work for his salvation. By teaching
that salvation is gained by man, than one teaches that it can be lost by
man. This is the false doctrine of works; the opposite of sola fide.
242
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
This is the only possible way to establish divorce, i.e. by teaching
works for salvation. But our salvation is sure: “He that hath the Son
hath life”, and “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” Does this
sound like Jesus will divorce one of his sheep if He so wishes.
Therefore marriage is binding even in the event of adultery.
Remember that Jesus took on the church while we were yet sinners,
and reconciled us while we were enemies. Love is at heart of the
matter. The innocent partner must provide the way for the
adulterer—or any other marriage breaking sin of the partner—and
permit the door of repentance to remain open as the way for the
departed spouse to return to full marital union. Thus marriage is a
picture of salvation. (I certainly am not advocating sacramentalism).
If one does not provide the way of return and repentance for the
separated spouse then one certainly does not preach Christ and His
Gospel. For the Gospel is always open to the sinner, and that offer is
until death does us part. The only time that God’s offer of salvation
is removed from the spouse—For God so loved the world that He
gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should
not perish but have everlasting life—is when the spouse is dead.
Jesus by equating His marriage with His church to human marriage
declares that marriage on the earth is eternal—eternal as a measure of
the time one lives on the earth. And that since a man establishes his
salvation by faith—without the deeds of the flesh—then the door and
way of faith in the marriage of earthly wedded couples must be kept
open for their guilty partner during their lifetime. If you have
followed my argument I have said: To believe in divorce is to believe
in works for salvation. By divorcing a spouse you are saying that the
failed spouse lost the salvation of the marriage, and is to be accursed.
This concept terribly fails to meet the analogy of marriage that God
teaches us in Eph. 5.
I am not preaching sacramental marriage—the Roman
Catholic doctrine of receiving grace through marriage—I am teaching
that marriage is a type or a picture of salvation. Some do not seem to
understand the complications caused by sin in a marriage. The guilty
spouse who believes in non-permanency marriage may have found in
their eyes a more attractive person, and after some time was found
guilty of adultery. That spouse may see their “salvation” in this
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
243
situation as: divorce with remarriage to the person of adultery. But
according to permanency marriage the only thing that spouse has
accomplished is to make-believe that their adultery is a holy. Their
adultery is continually adultery and the children of adultery are
always bastard-children. If the spouse had any children by their first
spouse, those children are holy and that spouse is the true parent of
those children forever. But the children of adultery are unholy.
Adulterous-marriage is all too common in our evil world today; as
stated’ some people just don’t understand the complications of
divorce with remarriage.
The other side of the coin here is that if an innocent spouse
sues for divorce they deny the guilty partner the promise of full
marital reconciliation upon repentance; then it’s as if that person is
denying salvation to the guilty; since marriage is a picture of
salvation. The most degrading event occurs when the innocent
partner sues by the false doctrine of divorce and then the innocent
partner remarries under the law of man. The debauchery here is that
the new marriage is adultery, and any children born to this marriage
are unholy.
So the solution to any marital problem can only be solved
with true repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation. But if the
unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under
bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. For what
knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how
knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? If an
innocent spouse denies their partner the opportunity of repentance
with full marital reconciliation, then the analogy of the church and
marriage has failed.
The greatest sin in the marriage discussion is actually caused
by the false teachers who are leading millions into darkness and
apostasy. Let me explain. When a pastor counsels a person away
from permanency-marriage and pontificates that their marriage can be
put asunder, for what he decides is a so called legitimate reason, and
approves remarriage he is leading that person into apostasy. Any act
of sexual intercourse for a married person with someone other than
their living spouse is adultery. Divorce in other words for a married
couple is impossible. By advising toward divorce with remarriage
the false teacher is leading his hearers into apostasy, the falling away
from the truth. The Scriptures declare that the latter day apostasy will
244
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
be marked by marriage divorcers (covenant breakers, trucebreakers):
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For
men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without
natural affection, trucebreakers [given to marital divorce, my
comment] II Tim. 3:3).”
So these false teachers enter the world of apostates
themselves. Notice what they have managed to pull off—a
vernacular term meaning to deceive. They take a clean holy vessel—
a spouse who never committed adultery—and have led that spouse
directly into and adulterous union and have accomplished even a
greater feat; they have called the unholy act of adultery, holy
matrimony. It is as if they are saying to the spouse, Go, the church
blesses your holy-adultery. The crime here is enlarged since now the
spouse is trapped into the bonds of sin without the immediate
opportunity to repent and be saved, repent and be forgiven. This is
apostasy. The Pharisees asked, “Why did Moses then command to
give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away,” did they realize
what they said. The word divorcement is apostasion. The “writing of
divorcement” can be referred to as a Writing of Apostasy
Salvation sola gratia assures sinners that by repentance and
faith they are saved; “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any
man should boast.” The false teacher’s doctrine slaps sola gratia in
the face. By teaching holy-adultery they have created an act whereby
the sinner is at liberty to willfully sin and live comfortably—
especially in the church—in a state of mind whereby they believe
they are righteous. This is an affront to the Gospel—excluding the
sin of adulterous-remarriage from the act of repentance—now the
sinner cannot be forgiven because they do not know they are living in
sin. It is the same as teaching a homosexual that he/she has been born
as such. This is debauchery and apostasy; for certain. “Woe unto
them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light,
and light for darkness” (Isa. 5:20a).
That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word, that he might present
it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
245
wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy
and without blemish.
Eph. 5:26,27
The husband is also called upon not only to prepare to die for
his spouse but to live for her. He is to labor with her to make her
beautiful and glorious, i.e. without the blemish of any sin. He must
be determined to teach her, or assure that she is taught the truth of the
Scriptures that she may be spiritually clean not having any spot or
wrinkle of sin. She can only be glorious if she is steeped in the
Word. The couple should have a living dialogue with the Scriptures.
So ought men to love their wives as their own
bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For
no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth
and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For
we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his
bones.
Eph. 5:28-30
The man is again commanded to love his wife. The Lord
expects men to love their wives as they love themselves. Most men
savor food, and consequently most men love to nourish themselves
with good food. American men generally prefer beef to fish; so the
landscape is littered with burger and steak restaurants. One might say
men love grilled steak and hate boiled fish. The man’s appetite is
addressed here as proof that he nourisheth himself, because he loveth
himself. We might go one step further and say that because man
loveth himself he cheriseth a grilled medium rare filet mignon, and he
hateth boiled fish. Men are very happy and with joy eat the steak.
This is the joy he should have in loving his wife, cherishing his wife
as Christ cherisheth His church. Then Paul expands his teaching on
the doctrine of permanency-marriage, stating that believers are
members of Christ’s body, flesh, and of His bones. We, the
believers, “are” one with Christ; as Adam said, “This is now bone of
my bones, and flesh of my flesh.”
For this cause shall a man leave his father and
mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they
246
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but
I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Eph. 5:31,32
Here we find creation-marriage glorified in the doctrine of
the body of Christ, the church. This is marriage; “a man shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” This speaks of
permanency and the permanency of the church is spelled Eternal
Security. Creation-Marriage is permanent, and Heaven-Marriage
is permanent. Salvation, the blessing of the church, is a heavenly
marriage with Christ, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in
heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3). As is heavenly-marriage, so
is creation-marriage they are both permanent, otherwise God
would not have compared them. Paul concludes the matter, “This
is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the
church”—what more can I say.
Now the purpose and labor of this entire dissertation was to
set the record straight. Matthew’s exception clause alone belongs to
Matthew. The exception clause of Matthew is an obscure text, or as
Peter declares of some Scriptures “things hard to be understood”
(2 Pet. 3:16). The true church and believer in our day must “admit”
that Matthew is a difficult “obscure” text. The difficulty of
Matthew’s obscure text must be subject to the analogy of the faith,
i.e. it must harmonize with the Scriptures. The primary difficulty with
this obscure text observed in Matt. 5:32 is that at the moment of its
record Jesus was rebuking Israel’s leaders for failing to understand
the Ten Commandments. His teaching was radically opposed to their
assumptions regarding murder and adultery. A moment of hatred with
a foul word toward your brother was murder. To look on a woman
with lust was now adultery. Radical. So His teaching on divorce must
have been radical, just as radical as the teaching of divorce as seen in
the Gospel of Mark, Luke and in the writings of the Apostle Paul.
For any believer to understand otherwise is to be down-right
dishonest. I believe that anyone, believing saint or lost sinner, who
fails to admit that Matthew’s exception clause on its immediate
appearance in both cases when considering just some of the context
(Matt. 5 “But I say unto you,” and Matt. 19 “Let not man put
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
247
asunder”) contradicts Christ’s teaching and contradicts the entire
Bible regarding the subject of marriage. This does not mean that
Matthew’s text is spurious; it simply means that it is obscure and
difficult to understand. Just be careful dear reader that you do not
wrest with it to your own destruction; “As also in all his epistles,
speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be
understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they
do also other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (II Pet. 3:16).
With that said, I will conclude this dissertation by permitting
Scripture to interpret Scripture and for that matter I will permit
Matthew to interpret Matthew and dissolve the doubts regarding the
meaning of “except it be for fornication.” Let’s go on to the final
battle.
Matthew 19—The Gettysburg of the Divorce War
As we pointed out the geography of (Matt. 19) may be as
important as the text itself. As Gettysburg, the city of boots, was
located central to the Civil War, so Perea, the geography of (Matt. 19)
was central to the Divorce War. Pennsylvania was at the
geographical separation of north and south. The site provided for the
full expression of both armies. It permitted both ideologies to fully
vent themselves, as likewise does the location of the Matthew logion:
And it came to pass that, when Jesus had finished
these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came
into the coasts of Judea beyond Jordan; (Matt. 19:1)
Edersheim makes this notable comment:
"Accordingly, when these Pharisees again
encountered Jesus, now on his journey to Judea, they
resumed the subject precisely where it had been
broken off when they had last met Him, only now
with the object of 'tempting Him.' Perhaps it may
also have been in the hope that, by getting Christ to
commit Himself against divorce in Perea (the
territory of Herod) they might enlist against Him, as
248
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
formerly against the Baptist, the implacable hatred
of Herodias.218
Edersheim introduces the implacable hatred of Herodias into
his interpretation of the Matthew divorce logion, a consideration
which has been received indifferently by modern scholars. He goes
on to state that many commentators of his era believed that this was
the case, specifically mentioning Meyer as a proponent of this view.
Heth and Wenham give honor to the thought:
It is of interest that Tertullian set Jesus' prohibition
of divorce in the context of John's denunciation of
Herod's unlawful and adulterous marriage with
Herodias (Against Marcion 4.34). J.C. Laney also
feels this historical incident is important to consider:
John the Baptist's denunciation of the 'unlawful'
(Matt. 14:4; Mk. 6:18) union of Herod Antipas with
the former wife of his brother Philip fits well with
Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees. Perhaps the
test with which the Pharisees confronted Jesus
(Matt. 19:3) was related to Herod's situation rather
than simply to the rabbinic debate.219
Some honor has been given to the geography of the text, but most
draw away in favor of the Hillel-Shammai debate. But is the text a
rabbinic debate? It was certainly an element of the debate that cannot
be questioned, but the geography of the debate weighs the balance in
favor of the Herodias view, and the preaching of the Forerunner.
Jesus did not immediately answer or remark on the beheading of
John, but now He opens the door to Herod's palace and preaches
John's message, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife,"
(Mk. 6:18). Is that in fact what Jesus was doing?
Let us now consider this element in the explanation of the
dissertation of Jesus regarding divorce. As stated each of the divorce
statements prohibit divorce and remarriage, except for the exception
clause. Consequently the exception clause has become the crux
interpretum (the primary cross, perplexing problem, or puzzle of the
interpretation) of all Scripture regarding divorce. Creating such a
dynamic impact that it seems shelves and shelves of books and tracts
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
249
have been written to discuss the problem; with positions ranging from
its meaning to be adultery to the possibility that it is an interpolation.
Certainly Matthew’s exception qualifies as an obscure text. This
book has not been entered into without much serious study, and labor,
(it was over thirty years in the making).
With this in mind we are then forced to choose our
hermeneutics. Regardless of your scholarship you must make a
choice. If your system believes in the analogy of the faith—this rule
states that there is a harmony of Scripture—then you must apply this
rule to Matthew’s obscure exception clause. Scripture must be used
to interpret Scripture. Peter said it this way, "Knowing this first, that
no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation," (II Pet.
1:20). The NSRB makes this comment, "Any private interpretation"
might read "its own interpretation"; i.e. not isolated from what the
Scripture states elsewhere.220 It is the exception clause that must be
interpreted with the analogy of the Scripture in mind. Since the word
porneia has the potential of being interpreted in many ways the
understanding of that word must be generated by the context
surrounding the word. Perea surrounds the text. John was killed in
Perea. There his headless corpse was buried, nevertheless his tongue
continued to preach. Could the Pharisees succeed in arousing the
semi-cooled implacable wrath of Herodias?
John the Baptist was sacrificed on the altar of incest. John's
cries were bold against the king of the land. His call was as of a
clarion: You Herod are corrupting marriage and I am going to make
an example of you. He was willing to do whatever was necessary to
make his message known to all mankind. He was even willing to
have his throat severed through and have his head delivered to the
king on a silver platter to make his message known. Now in Perea,
Jesus raises the screaming cries of John to Herod and Herodias,
Repent of your sin, for it is not lawful for you to have her. J. Carl
Laney agrees:
The geographical and historical background is
crucial to our understanding of this encounter
between Christ and the Pharisees. Jesus had
concluded His Galilean ministry and was now
beginning His journey through Perea to Jerusalem
for the Passover and His own crucifixion. Traveling
250
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
through Perea in the spring of A.D. 33, Jesus was
approached by some Pharisees who sought to stump
Him with a theological test question. Notice that the
Pharisees were not asking the question to learn but
only to "test" Jesus. They actually wanted to get
Him into trouble.221
Heth and Wenham artfully resurrect the scholarship of the
early church, showing that until Erasmus the church believed in the
permanency of marriage. In their volume they take a no-remarriagethis-side-of-death view, which is constructed on the writings of the
early church fathers. Regarding the meaning of the exception clause,
Heth and Wenham labor to explain all the present schools of thought
on the subject and then say, “Considering the brevity of Jesus’
recorded remarks about divorce, the quantity of literature that they
have generated is truly remarkable. This survey [their book Jesus
and Divorce, my comment] has tried to present the current scholarly
theories as fairly as possible, to show their strengths and weaknesses,
so that the reader can decide for himself or herself which is the most
probable view.”
As stated, as it appears Jesus absolutely prohibited divorce
except for the exception clause. Therefore if the exception clause did
not exist, the Scriptures would overwhelmingly teach us that divorce
was absolutely prohibited by the Lord Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, we
are not ashamed to address those words: “saving for the cause of
fornication, and except it be for fornication.” However, it brings to
mind those admonitions: “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them
of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the
other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (II Pet. 3:16). So
keeping this in mind we shall exposit the most wrestled text in the
history of Christianity. Let us continue to explore the context of those
disputed words: saving for, and except for.
Matthew 19:2
And great multitudes followed him; and he healed
them there.
Matt. 19:2
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
251
In Perea, great multitudes are gathered about Jesus, and of
course that includes the Pharisees. The fame of Jesus was peaking.
We can imagine the applause of the multitude as they see the miracles
of healing. The Glory of the Savior was shining through, provoking
the poor to praise and the Pharisees to outrage. That rage was a
cunningly devised plot against the Lord of Glory. Their design was
simple. Now that Jesus was in Perea, they would simple align Jesus
with the Forerunner and deliver Him to the fury of Herodias, the
Mad-One. Jesus knew their plot and was not fearful to enter it, as we
shall see.
Matthew 19:3
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him,
and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put
away his wife for every cause?
Matt. 19:3
The question “for every cause” is the bait of a trap. It raised
the theological controversy of Shammai, and Hillel. But this was not
just a simple honest doctrinal inquiry. It was a deliberate testing; the
setting of a trap. As said, one important element in this inquiry was
its geography. Was the real purpose of the question to draw the Lord
Jesus into the jaws of Herod and Herodias? After all, divorce was the
initial sin of Herod Antipas. He put away his wife, the daughter of
Aretas, King of Arabia. John attacked the incestuous marriage of
Herod. John preached against the sin of Herod’s divorce. The
Herod-Herodias snare is a reasonable interpretation of this incident.
The Pharisees knew that Jesus did not agree with either one of the
rabbis. They knew that Jesus, as John, taught a revolutionary
doctrine of marriage—revolutionary to their own liberalism—
however it was nothing more than the old fashion doctrine of
permanency creation-marriage. Some scholars put Jesus on the side
of Shammai; but this is wrong since Shammai did not teach
permanency. Jesus’ teaching was radical, so radical in fact that his
own disciples were outraged with Him; as we shall see.
252
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Matthew 19:4-6
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not
read, that he which made them at the beginning
made them male and female, And said, For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man
put asunder.
Matt. 19:4-6
Permanency-Marriage was the doctrine of Jesus. The
answer to the question of the Pharisee's was quick and simple: the
marriage bond is permanent. Man cannot divide that which is
indivisible. The words above declare that Jesus believed and taught
the doctrine of permanency-marriage and that is indisputable.
Therefore before any interpreter teaches that Jesus did not teach
permanency, they must be absolutely sure they can prove their claim.
For this reason the Early Church View understood the exception
clause to permit a separation of the marriage partners without any
right to remarry; "no-remarriage-this-side-of-death." Another
monumental consequence of the twain becoming one flesh, and
Jesus’ prohibition of remarriage is the truth that Jesus taught that
marriage is monogamous; he absolutely repudiated polygamy.
Matthew 14:6 Early Church View 222
Heth and Wenham realizing that pastors and laymen would
not have the time or the resources to examine the extensive literature
surrounding the divorce debate therefore theycompleted that task and
have established a standard explanation of all the early church
literature in their volume, Jesus and Divorce. Establishing the Early
Church View as their foundation they go on to examine the church
Fathers, "namely those Christian theologians who wrote in the first
five centuries of the Christian era." 223 One influencing observation is
that the early father's shared unanimity in their understanding of the
divorce texts. These authors then summarize the fathers as teaching a
doctrine of no-remarriage-this-side-of-death.224
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
253
Their comprehensive study—it possibly could be described
as the most comprehensive study of this subject that was ever
written—contends that in the first five centuries all Greek writers and
all Latin writers except one agree that remarriage following divorce
for any reason is adulterous. The marriage bond was seen to unite
both parties until the death of one of them. When a marriage partner
was guilty of unchastity, usually understood to mean adultery, the
other was expected to separate—separation without divorce—without
the right to remarry. Even in the case of I Corinthians 7:15, the socalled Pauline privilege, which later Catholics interpreted to permit a
believer deserted by an unbeliever to remarry, the early church
fathers said that the deserted Christian had no right to remarry.225
Heth and Wenham commence the third chapter of their
dissertation with this sentence:
The early Christian writer’s interpretation of the
divorce texts remained the standard view on the
church in the West until the sixteenth century when
Erasmus suggested a different view that was adopted
by Protestant theologians.226
It is of utmost importance that one understands that Erasmus
was a man who shunned sound doctrine in spite of the serious
warnings of the Apostle: “For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away
their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Ti. 4:3,4).
Again Heth and Wenham quote V.N. Olsen who writes in his study of
the interpretation of the New Testament divorce texts from Erasmus
to Milton:
In his interpretation of the New Testament logia on
divorce Erasmus reveals himself as a Christian
theologian who seeks to solve an ethical problem
within Church and society by finding a solution [to
permit divorce with remarriage, my comment] based
on Scripture and centered in Christ.
No
ecclesiastical institution should stand between the
needy [i.e., the divorced needy who wish to remarry,
254
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
my comment] and the Good Samaritan [the Church
should not stop Erasmus the heretic, my comment].
Erasmus appears not as an academic theorist but as a
Christian pragmatist who is devoted to his Master in
service for his fellow men.227
The overwhelming thrust of Heth and Wenham is to reveal
that the Erasmian view "flatly contradicts the patristic interpretation."
This is a very important observation. Has the Erasmian view been
dogmatized by the spirit of compromise? Modern Protestant scholars
embrace the Erasmian view as the Roman church embraces the
doctrine of the papacy and the mass. Heth and Wenham go on to
exposit the teaching of the following Fathers: Hermas, Justin Martyr,
Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian. They go on to list the others who
agree to the doctrine no-remarriage-this-side-of-death, Basil of
Ancyra, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollinaris of
Laodicea, Theodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrosostom, Theodoret,
Epiphanius, Ambrose, Innocent I, Pelagius, Jerome, Leo the Great,
and Augustine. "In all, twenty-five individual writers and two early
councils forbid remarriage after divorce." 228 They also point out that
the early church fathers debated many doctrines but regarding noremarriage-this-side-of death there was no debate; they all agreed. In
general the early church fathers take the following position: (1) the
heart of their doctrine saw marriage as organically indissoluble—
permanent; (2) if infidelity interrupts the marriage bond the faithful
partner could separate from the infidel—the innocent to wait for the
infidel to repent, but the innocent partner could not remarry (3)
remarriage was only permitted to the widow or widower, and then
sometimes reluctantly; (4) the remarriage of a separated partner to
another, while their original marriage partner was alive, was
considered adultery; (5) they understood the "exception clause" to
apply only to the first part of the conditional clause, and that it did not
apply to remarriage; (6) the repentance of the guilty partner was the
only hope of the innocent partner to establish any marriage
relationship, and that repentance was taken seriously:
Whoever has committed adultery will be excluded
from the sacraments for fifteen years: he must weep
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
255
for four years [outside the door of the church during
the service], then he must listen for five years [in the
vestibule], be prostrated [among the full
congregation] for two years without receiving
communion.229
Some of these penalties seem exceptionally harsh to
our age partly because discipline has virtually
disappeared in many parts of the modern church.
Excommunication, however, was a regular feature of
the New Testament church for various sins (cf.
Matt. 18:15-18; IICor. 2:5-11; II Thess. 3:14)
including sexual offences (1Cor. 5:1-13). We do not
know how long such a sentence would have lasted,
though presumably it could not have been revoked
until the offender showed signs of repentance (cf. 2
Cor.7:7-13; 2 Tim. 2:24-6).230
Matthew 19:7,8
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command
to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her
away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the
hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away
your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Matt. 19:7,8
This text has been discussed at length in earlier chapters of
this book. Jesus explains that the writing of divorcement was not an
ordinance of law it was a Mosaic concession to the awful hardness of
man’s heart. Jesus throws their exhibit out of court forever.
Matthew 19:9 and The Exception Clauses
But I say unto you that whosoever shall put
away his wife, except for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall
marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 5:32
256
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry
another, committeth adultery; and whosoever
marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:9
As noted the exception clause is common only to Matthew;
therefore I see it as one comment, i.e. one witness. The three other
N.T. writers who discuss the subject of marriage and divorce—Mark,
Luke, and Paul—preach the doctrine of permanency-marriage with
no divorce-remarriage option. This in itself, beside the fact that the
tremendous weight of the literature it has spawned, qualify Matthew’s
texts to be tagged an obscure text. With this in mind—noting that we
have earlier eliminated (Deut. 24:1-4) as a possible reference—we
must ask ourselves the following question; since no other author
permits us to cross reference Matthew, does Matthew himself
interpret his own words of the obscure text? As the honest student
proposes this question to Matthew he will find that Matthew clearly
answers the query himself. He actually gives us two causes that can
be interpreted as fornication. Two separate meanings of porneia that
could explain his obscure text. We will exposit the definitions as
they appear chronologically. They have been given the theological
titles of: (1) The Betrothal View, (2) The Unlawful Marriage View.
Betrothal View: Fornication
I have fully explained this view at the beginning of this
chapter in my exposition of (Matthew 1:18,19). Joseph, while
engaged to Mary, found her with child. On the surface this appeared
to Joseph as an illegitimate child. His exact thought was that Mary
committed an act of premarital sex, i.e. she committed a special act of
fornication. His immediate reaction was to put her away, divorce her.
This required a public act of repudiation—divorce was public—and
Joseph could not bring himself to commit such a public act. So he
decided to privately divorce Mary. The Scripture clearly tells us that
Joseph was a “just man.” He had the perfect legal right to put his
betrothed (engaged wife) away; it was the accepted legal custom at
that specific time in Jewish history. At that moment he thought she
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
257
had committed betrothal fornication. This is one of Matthew’s own
answers to the question as to the meaning of fornication. Therefore if
we rewrite the text in question it would read:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of betrothal
fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
committeth adultery.
Matthew 5:32
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for betrothal fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso
marrieth her which is put away doth commit
adultery.
Matthew 19:9
The Unlawful Marriage Incest View: Fornication
The Book of Leviticus is the ruling text of this view. As
mentioned under the discussion of John the Baptist we found John in
his sermon accused Herod of committing incest, i.e. being unlawfully
wedded to Herodias according to Levitical law. Thus the Unlawful
Marriage View may be referred to as the Incest View. In Chapter
Three of this dissertation we have explored the abominable custom of
the Egyptians—Incest. We noted from (Lev.18:1-18) that Jehovah
God specifically threatened the death penalty—to be cut off from
among their people—to any Israelite who committed the
abominations of the Egyptians. Marriage within the forbidden
degrees of (Lev. 18:1-18) was absolutely prohibited. Lev. 18:16
specifically prohibits a man to marry his brother’s wife; this was the
very act that John accused Herod Antipas of committing. World
governments today have similar definitions of incest and prohibit
marriage within the forbidden degrees. This being the case we now
might interpret Matthew to read:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away
his wife, saving for the cause of incest, causeth her
to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her
that is divorced committeth adultery. Matthew 5:32
258
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his
wife, except it be for incest, and shall marry another,
committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which
is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:9
The primary argument against both these views from divorce
scholars is that both of them are remote interpretations of the word
porneia. So be it, I say, Matthew has spoken and no other biblical
writer has; and beside that Matthew has explained himself. Therefore
we can conclude that remarriage this side of death is adultery. This is
exactly what Augustine referred to as “Adulterous-Marriage.”
Acts Chapters 15 and 21 Further Support For the Unlawful
Marriage View (Incest)
Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them,
which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from
pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from
things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:19,20
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and
from blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye
shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:29
As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have
written and concluded that they observe no such
thing, save only that they keep themselves from
things offered to idols, and from blood, and from
strangled, and from fornication. Acts 21:25
As we continue into the N.T. some scholars find the above
texts to be the next major reference in the incest view of porneia. As
we explore these texts, known as the Jerusalem Decree, we notice
some of the nomenclature of the priesthood. We should not be
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
259
surprised to find that scholars see these texts as a clear reference to
(Lev. 17,18). Although Heth and Wenham do not embrace the
Unlawful Marriage View—also known as the Rabbinic View—they
nevertheless gives it some respect.
[Leaving the idea of mixed marriages—Jews with
heathen, Heth and Wenham go on with this
consideration: my comment.] This is not impossible,
but another view may offer greater possibilities of
being the correct one [a reference to the Incest View,
my comment]. In the light of the almost unanimous
scholarly consensus that “porneia” in Acts 15:20, 29
and 21:25 denotes intercourse with close of kin
[within the forbidden degrees—incest, my
comment], that no great problem exists in lining up a
moral regulation with several ceremonial
restrictions, and that the four things prohibited by
the decree [pollutions from idols, from fornication,
from things strangled, and from blood - my
comment] are the same four prohibited by the
holiness Code of Leviticus 17-18 for both Israelites
and strangers among them, it seems that the rabbinic
[incest] variation of the unlawful marriage view has
a better chance of being the correct one. On this
view, Gentiles who had ‘married’ within the
categories forbidden by Leviticus 18:6-18, upon
becoming Christians, found themselves in a doublebind: caught by Jesus’ absolute prohibition of
divorce. Matthew solves their dilemma by inserting
the clauses which indicated such unions were in fact
non-marriages. They did not fall under Jesus’
absolute prohibition of divorce where a valid
marriage is concerned.231
I see this commentary as a remarkable discussion that certainly places
the Unlawful Marriage Incest View interpretation of the exception
clauses as viable.
260
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
Matthew 19:10-12
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man
be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive
this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born
from their mother's womb: and there are some
eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
there be eunuchs, which have made themselves
eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is
able to receive it, let him receive it. Matt. 19:10-12
I find this outburst of the disciples almost hostile. I believe it
was driven by their conviction that they believed that marriage
certainly was not permanent; that all men, even a disciple, had the
right to put away a wife and remarry, i.e. at least for some causes.
But they now understood Jesus to absolutely forbid divorce. He was
also absolutely declaring that marriage is permanent until death doyou-part. One must note that all of Jesus’ disciples strenuously
objected; almost to the point of threatening a departure with Christ
over this issue. “If the case of a man be so, it is not good to marry.”
The disciples were divided against Him; but, Jesus quickly puts them
in their place.
He gives them the door. Go from me if ye will, he cries. All
men cannot receive this saying, save them to whom it is given. Here
the Savior strikes back with another exception clause; save them to
whom it is given. Please note that all the disciples are silent. They
now had to evaluate their hearts. They certainly knew that the arguing
Pharisees were not among the given. So in plain English they shut up,
in fear of perhaps being counted among the unsaved ones. They must
have pondered what they perceived as His awful words “What
therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” Their
silence is louder then a shrilling scream.
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
261
Matthew 19:13-15
Then were there brought unto him little children,
that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and
the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me:
for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid
his hands on them, and departed thence.
Matt. 19:13-15
Some may object to including the little children in the
marriage-divorce pericope; but I say it is fitting and should be
included. What is the bottom line of the divorce controversy? Is it
not the children; the orphans of divorced-broken families. Don’t
these orphans have any rights? Well, Jesus said that they sure do
have rights. “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on
them, and departed thence.” Yes, He laid his hand on them. He
touched them. Marriages are to be built on Christ. What God hath
joined together. The most powerful evangelistic tool in the hand of
God is a saved mother and father; and I might add a saved
grandmother and grandfather. The heart of a true believing parent
prays fervently for its child; presenting the Gospel with great care so
as to ensure that their child truly gets every opportunity to get saved;
to have his or her own experience of repentance and faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ. This is difficult to provide to the child of a brokenfamily.
In the dedication of this book you will read that I have
honored the faithful spouse who is awaiting the return of a departed
sinful spouse; in all actuality dying for the beloved departed one. I
believe that is what it means to give your life for your wife—to wear
yourself out till death if necessary for your departed spouse. These
faithful men and women are offering the Grace of God to their
unfaithful and abusive mates to the Glory of God, waiting lovingly
for their reconciliation in this lifetime if possible. The second person I
honored are the children of divorce; especially that little Amy or
Tommy who wish they could live with their creation-marriage
biological father or mother and have all his or her love; not being
262
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
required to share it with alien children or an alien parent. These
children have rights to.
Conclusion
Well, after this lengthy discussion of divorce we have finally
reached the end of the road. The immense volume of literature which
this subject has generated raises a serious question: Why all this
literature? The answer is simple: Because the weight of Scripture,
conscience, and nature teach man that marriage is permanent, i.e. a
literal band of God. The literature is the result of man’s feeble
attempt to break God’s bands asunder (Psa.2:3), and God said, “Let
not man put asunder;” nevertheless man believes he has found an
exception clause to rend God’s prohibition, His band. But as I have
labored to reveal, the exception clause in the hands of man has
become a deception-clause. This single fact has created the massive
volume of historical literature on the subject of divorce. Divorce is
not even a possibility; it is non-existent in the teaching of Christ
regarding marriage. You can be assured dear believer, as God said,
“I hate putting away” (Mal.2:16), be assured that Christ will never
divorce me, and he will never divorce you. Jesus just does not teach
divorce; to Him it is a mere imagination, and the invention of the
Prince of Darkness, the Devil. But Christ is the Prince of Light and
He has faithfully promised each believer an eternal union with God
the Father through Him and this union is indissoluble and eternally
permanent.
These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to
heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify
thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee As thou
hast given him power over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life [He will never take it back, my
comment] to as many as thou hast given him. And
this is life eternal, that they might know thee the
only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast
sent. (Jn. 17:1-3)
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also
which shall believe on me through their word; That
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
263
they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I
in thee, that they also may be one in us [as in
marriage: they twain shall be one, my comment]:
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given
them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in
them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect
in one [marriage a type of the believer in the body of
Christ, my comment]; and that the world may know
that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou
hast loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom
thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that
they may behold my glory, which thou hast given
me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the
world.
Jn.17:20-24
We have eternal life, eternal security, in Christ, "For God so
loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life; For he
that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; He that hath the Son
hath life. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow
me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which
gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them
out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one. The great mystery
of being one with Christ, is salvation. Oh how great salvation! Our
heavenly marriage to Christ is everlasting. And dear born-again
reader, if you in some way believe that you have departed from Christ
and his doctrine, be assured that if you repent and return to Him, He
will receive you with open arms for Jesus said, Come unto me, all ye
that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. He is a
faithful husband that is still waiting by homes door since the day you
left him. He is ready to receive you back into his arms.
And dear reader if you have never found repentance and faith
unto eternal life I invite you today to turn from sin to God and come
unto Jesus the only true God and Savior and believe in Him for your
salvation which he purchased with His own precious blood on the old
rugged cross. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these
things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and
264
Chapter Six
Jesus’ Doctrine
the bright and morning star. And the Spirit and the bride say, Come.
And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come.
And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. Jesus
promises you eternal life, that is absolute everlasting life, and Jesus
is not a liar, His word is sure and everlasting; heaven and earth shall
pass away but His word endureth forever, and so will you if you trust
in Him. He will never divorce you, for that I am sure.
As I have been laboring: the most important subject in the
divorce debate is the subject of Salvation by Grace. The sinning
partner must be offered salvation; the fornicator of (I Cor. 5)
eventually repented and was received back into the church of Corinth
(II Cor. 2). Marriage is an illustration of Salvation. Salvation is
permanent, and for that reason Marriage is permanent. Divorced
from Christ cannot be; so divorce does not fit into the married
person’s life. Therefore if divorce is forbidden then the Deuteronomic
abomination cannot be committed today; all other liaisons of a
married spouse are adulterous. Keep that in mind if you should so
seek reunion with a divorced creation-marriage spouse. Furthermore
the concept of the abomination has been over-ruled to the
permanency believer since Jehovah God himself told His sinning
wife Israel to return to Him (Jer.3:1). The reason God could justly
take Israel back as His wife in purity was only because God never
endorsed, and never will endorse divorce. The divorce that Israel
experienced was only an illustration. Jehovah God hateth putting
away; He hateth divorce. Creation-Marriage is a type or picture of
Salvation it speaks of eternal life with eternal security; for by Grace
are ye saved by faith.
Final Comment:
Consider the possibility of the judgment of Western
Civilization, likened to the Judgment of the Flood and Sodom; and
the violence of measure today would be man’s violent treatment of
God’s ordained command regarding creation-marriage; then as we
look about our once Christian America—especially the Bible
believing church—and the other Christian countries of the West, the
state of creation-marriage is quickly collapsing, thus we can say the
next Date of Judgment draweth swiftly nigh. Yes, as mentioned in the
“Introduction” of this book, “The fate of marriage and perhaps the
What is Jesus’ Doctrine of Marriage Divorce and Remarriage?
265
fate of mankind may depend on your interpretation of those five
words: “except it be for fornication.”
“Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in
sincerity. Amen.”
End Notes
267
1
. Ynet News.Com: singles – Brit Jew Marries Dolphin,
Dec. 29, 2005 Joe Kot
2. C.F Kiel; F. Delitzsch, quoting Zeigler, Old Testament
Commentary (Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mich.) v. 1:p. 88;
Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple
(trans. N. Tomkinson with J. Gray; Lund: Gleerup, 1965) p.
144,45; Isaksson argues against androgyneity.
3. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Minn. Mn; Bethany
House, 1981) p. 16
4.C.F.Kiel; F. Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentary
(Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mi) v.1:p. 65
5. Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple
(trans. N. Tomkinson with J. Gray; Lund: Gleerup, 1965) p.
20; This idea of kinship is a strong support for the doctrine
of indissolubility. Heth, Wedham, Laney, Steele, and Ryrie
lean in Isaksson's direction. Gen. 2; Lev. 18; and Deut. 24
are pertinent to kinship.
6. C.F. Kiel, F. Delitzch, Old Testament Commentary
(Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, Mich.) 1:60
7. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Bethany House, Mn,
1981) p. 18
8. W. Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet (Act I, scene V)
9. Ibid. (Act II, scene II)
10. J. Carl Laney, The Divorce Myth (Bethany House, Minn.
MN, 1981) p. 18
11. D. Atkinson, G. von Rad in, To Have and to Hold
(Eerdmans; Grand Rapids, MI) p. 77
12. Chaucer in, Compact Ed. Oxford Eng. Dict., (Oxford
Univ. Press 1984) p. 1899
13. C.F. Kiel, F. Delitzsch, Old Testament Comm.
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.) p. 1:60
14. W.J. Hopewell, Jr., Marriage and Divorce, (Niles &
Phipps; Birmington, NY 1976) p. 3,4
268
End Notes
15. V. E. Smith, Footnotes for the Atom, (Bruce,
Milwaukee, 1951) p. 63, 64
16. Ibid. p. 16
17. Ibid. p. 27
18. Ibid. p. 67
19. Ibid. p. 40
20. Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 10th ED.
(Merriam Webster, 1994)
21. Bangor Daily News (Bangor Maine; May 16, 1987) Dirk
J. van de Haas, "Population Decline in Europe.
22. W. A. Kilpatrick, Pyschological Seduction, (Thomas
Nelson, Nashville 1983) p. 126
23.. W. Fisher-Hunter, The Divorce Problem, (MacNeish;
Waynesboro, Penn. 1952) p. 11
24. W.A. Heths, G. Wedham, E. Neufeld in, Jesus and
Divorce, (Hodder/Stoughton, London 1984) p. 103
25. Ibid. p. 103, 104
26. D. Atkinson, To Have and to Hold, (Eerdmans; Grand
Rapids Michigan) p. 94
27. Ency. Brittanica (1960) 6:123
28. A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple,
(Lund; Gleeup, 1965) p. 86
29. Ibid. p. 87
30. E. G. Dobson, What the Bible Really Teaches About
Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage, (Flemming H. Revell,
Old Tappan, N.J. 1986) p. 42-47
31. J.E. Adams, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,
(Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co. Phillipsburg N.J.
1980) p. 24
32. Ency. Brittanica (1960) 17:919
33. Will and Ariel Durant; T.M. Green in, The Story of
Civilization (Simon and Schuster, NY,NY 1967) 10:532
End Notes
34. Ibid. p. 10:546
35. Ibid. p. 11:645
36. Ibid. p. 11:645 (Schopenhauer in)
37. Renald E. Showers, What On Earth Is God Doing?,
(Loizeaux, Neptune, N.J., 1973) p. 79
38. G.W. Dollar; Kenneth Cauther in, A History of
Fundamentalism, (BJU Press, Greenville, S.C. 1973) p. 91
39. Aloysius M. Ambrozic, "Indissolubility of Marriage in
the N.T.; Law or Ideal?", Studia Canonica (6; 1972) p. 285
40.W. Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy, (Garden City
Pub. Co., N.Y., N.Y., 1941) p. 226
41. Keil-Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentary (Eerdmans
Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, MI) 1:118
42. H.M. Morris, The Genesis Record, (Baker, Grand
Rapids, MI) p. 148
43. H. Polano, The Talmud, (Frederick Warne, London,
5636) p. 18
44. NSRB, (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, NY, 1967 p. 11
45. Keil-Delitzsch, O.T. Commentary (Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, MI) 1:137
46. W.G. Sumner, Folkways (Boston, 1906) p. 485; Adolf
Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, (Dover Pub. New York, NY,
1894, reprint 1971)
47. W. Durant, The Mansions of Philosophy, (Garden City
Pub. Co. N.Y., N.Y. 1941) p. 221,222
48. Keil-Delitzsch, O.T. Comm., 1:153
49. Ibid. 1:153
50. Walter Berns, For Capital Punishment, (Basic Books,
N.Y., 1979) p. 3
51. James B. Prichard, The Ancient Near East,
Supplementary Texts and Pictures, (Princeton University
269
270
End Notes
Press, Princeton, N.J. 1969) p. 87
52. Leon Wood, A History of Israel's History, (Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, MI, 1980) p. 40
53. Jack Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past, (Princeton
University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1959) p.52
54. Prichard, ANET supplement 1969, (Princeton, 1969) p.
88
55. Ibid. p. 88
56. Hans Jochen Boecker, Law and the Administration of
Justice in the Old Testament and Ancient East, (Ausburg
Pub. House, Minn. MN, 1980) p. 58
57. Burrows, Millar, The Basis of Israelite Marriage,
(American Oriental Society, New Haven, CN, 1938)
58. NSRB, Gen. 3:5
59. Prichard, ANET Supplement 1969, (Princeton) p. 88
60. Ibid. p. 88
61. Ibid. p. 89
62. Leon Wood, A History of Israel's History (Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, MI, 1980) p. 149
63. Albrecht Goetze, The Laws of Eshnunna, (Iraq and
American Oriental Research/Jane Dows Nies Fund, New
Haven, CT, 1956) p. 75
64. Ibid. p. 76
65. Ibid. p. 76
66. Ibid. p. 76-77
67. Ibid. p. 83
68. Ibid. p. 84
69. Ibid. p. 142
70. Francis Rue Steele, American Journal of Archaeology,
vol. LII, (George Banta Pub. Co., Menahsa, Wisconsin,
1948) p. 434
End Notes
71. Ibid. p. 441
72. Ibid. p. 441
73. Ibid. p. 441
74. Ibid. p. 441
75. Ibid. p. 442
76. Ibid. p. 442
77. Donald W. Shaner, A Christian View of Divorce,
(Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1969) p. 49
78. Steele, AJA vol. LII p. 442,443
79. Ibid. p. 443
80. James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts
(Princeton U. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1955) p. 177, 178
81. Ibid. p. 171
82. Ibid. p. 171
83. Ibid. p. 171
84. Ibid. p. 171
85. Ibid. p. 171
86. Ibid. p. 171
87. Ibid. p. 172
88. Ibid. p. 172
89. Ibid. p. 172
90.Ibid. p. 172
91. Millar Burrows, The Basis of Israelite Marriage
(American Oriental Series v. 5), (American Oriental
Society, New Haven, CT, 1938) p. 1
92. Unger, Gordon, C.H. in Archaeology and the Old
Testament (1954) p. 121
93. Durant, W., The Story of Civilization, (Simon and
Schuster, NY, 1954) Vol. I, p. 245
271
272
End Notes
94. The Compact Edition Oxford English Dictionary,
(Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford,1917) Vol. I:631
95. K.D.OTC, p. 1:166
96. Morris, The Genesis Record, p. 271
97.K.D.OTC, p. 1:174
98. K.D.OTC, p. 1:158
99. Morris, Genesis, p. 238
100. Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel's History, (Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970) p. 39
101. Herodotus, The Harvard Classics, (Collier, NY, 1937)
p. 33:44
102. ISBE, p. 1:268
103. H.L. Willmington, Willmington's Guide to the Bible, p.
931
104. ISBE, p. 1:268
105. Morris, Genesis, p. 265, 271
106. ISBE, p. 1:309
107. ISBE, p. 4:2398*
108. Encyclopaedia Brittannica, p. 17:768,769
109. K.D.OTC p. *look up reference to pederasty in the
account of Sodom
110. Durant, History, p. 1:235
111. Gordon, Cyrus, The Living Past, (John Day, N.Y.,
1941) p. 156
112. Ibid. p. 159
113. Schultz, Samuel, The Old Testament Speaks, (John
Day, N.Y. 1941) p. 33
114. Finegan, Jack, Light From the Ancient Past,
(Princeton, N.J., 1946) p. 67
End Notes
115. Borrows, Millar, The Basis of Israelite Marriage,
(Amer. Oriental Society, Conn., 1938)
116. Gordon, Living Past, p. 170
117. Ibid. p. 162
118. Ibid. p. 178
119. Hopewell, W. J., Marriage & Divorce, (N.J., 1976) p.
5
120. Sumner, W.G., Folkways, (Ginn, Boston, 1906) p.
485,486
121. Erman, Adolf, Life in Ancient Egypt, (Macmillan,
N.Y., 1894) p. 153,154
122. Durant, Story, p. 1:164, 954
123. Freud, Sigmund, Totem and Taboo, (Vintage, N.Y.,
1960) p. 7,16,18
124. Willmington, H.L., Guide to the Bible,
(Tyndale, Wheaton, 1981) p. 940
125. Isaksson, Abel, Marriage and Ministry, (Lund,
Copenhagen, 1965) p. 35
126. Boecker, Hans Jochen; Law and the
Administration of Justice in the Old Testament and
Ancient East, (Augsburg, Minn. 1980) p. 58
127. Wood, Leon; A Survey of Israels History
(Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1970) p. 145
128. Isaksson, A., Marriage, (Lund, Copenhagen) p.
35
129. K.D.OTC p. 3:424
130. Edersheim; Sketches, p. 142
131. Isaksson, Marriage, p. 35
132. KDOTC, p. II Sam. 11
133.Isaksson, Marriage, p. 22
273
274
End Notes
134. Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, (Hodder
and Stoughton, London, 1984) p. 107
135. Ibid. p. 111
136. Heth and Wedham (quote Craigie), Ibid. p. 108
137. Ibid. p. 108
138. Dobson, Edward G., What the Bible Really
Teaches About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,
(Revell, Old Tappan, N.J. 1986) p. 39
139. Adams, Jay,
Remarriage, p.29
Marriage,
Divorce,
and
140. Ibid. p. 29
141. Thompson, J.A., JJS 17, p. 5; quote Deut.
(London, 1974) p. 244, The sort of payments may
be gauged from extra-biblical sources, e.g., Laws of
Eshnuna 59, Hammurabi 137ff, Middle Assyrian
Laws A 37f.
142. Murry, John, Divorce, p. 13
143. Ibid. p. 13
144. Isaksson, Marriage, p. *
145. Yaron, R., Journal of Jewish Studies 17, (1966)
p. 8-9
146. Wenham, Gordon J., The Book Of Leviticus,
The New International Bible Commentary,
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 250.
147. Ibid. p. 251
148. Ibid. p. 253
149. Ibid. p. 254
150. Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 110
151. Ibid. p. 107
End Notes
152. Ibid. p. 107
153. Murry, John; Divorce (Presbyterian and
Reformed, Phillipsburg, N.J., 1961) p. 15
154. Chase, Frederic Henry; What Did Christ Teach
About Divorce, (Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, New York, 1921) p. 9
155. Edersheim; Sketches, p. 158
156. Shaner, Donald W., A Christian View of
Divorce, (Leiden E.J. Brill, 1969) p. 16
157. Ibid. 157-158
158. Hopewell, Marriage and Divorce, p. 2
159. Duty, Guy; Divorce and Remarriage, (Bethany,
Minn., 1967) p. 22
160. Dobson, Edward G.; What the Bible Really
Says About Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage,
(Revell, N.J., 1986) p. 35
161. Edersheim, Life and Times, p. 2:332
162. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry, p. 25-27
163. KDOTC, p. 3:415
164. Edersheim, Life and Times, p. 2:333
165. Heth and Wenham, Jesus and Divorce, p. 108
166. Atkinson, David, To Have and To Hold,
(Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1979) p. 103
167. Adams, Jay E., Marriage, Divorce, and
Remarriage, (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing
Co. , Phillipsburg, PA) p. 23
275
276
End Notes
168. Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Ex. 32
169. KDOTC, Num. 25:1-5
170. Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Num. 25:1-5
171. KDOTC, Jud. 9:1
172. KDOTC, II Sam. 5:13ff
173. Augistine, Adulterous Marriages, (translated by
C.T.Huegelmeyer) Fathers of the Church, 1955, N.Y.,
M.M., Maryknoll
174. Adams, Jay, E., Marriage, Divorce, and
Remarriage, (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing,
Phillipsburg, N.J., 1980) p. 24
175. Dobson, Edward G., What The Bible Really
Teaches About Divorce, (Revell, Old Tappan, NJ,
1986) p. 43
176. MacArthur, John, John MacArthur's Bible Studies
on Divorce, (Moody Press, Chicago, 1985) p. 46
177. Ibid. p. 46
178.
KDOTC, p 8:90
179. KDOTC, Hosea 1:1
180. MacLaren, Alexander, Expositions of the
Scriptures, (Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI) Hosea
4:17.
181. KDOTC, Hosea, introduction, p. 22
182. KDOTC, Hoses, introduction, p. 25
183. KDOTC, Malachi, introduction, "The Targumist,
Johnathan, ... has given the statement that Ezra the scribe is
the prophetic author of our book, as a conjecture founded
upon the spirit and contents of the prophecy. The notion that
Malachi is only an official name is therefore met with in
End Notes
many fathers, and has been vigorously defended in the most
recent times by Hengsterberg, who follows the lead of
Vitringa, whilst Ewald lays it down as an established truth."
184. KDOTC; Ezra 10:3
185. Ibid. Ezra 10:44
186.
Colqhoun, John, Repentance, (Banner of Truth
Trust, London, 1826, 1965)
187.
Quoting Heth and Wenham, Jesus and
Divorce, p. 163 (note 27) G. Rawlinson, Ezra
and Nehemiah: Their Lives and Times (New
York: Randolph, [1890]) 42. Cr. The Oxford
Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (eds H.G.
May and B.M. Metzger; New York: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1965) 584 n. at Ezra 10:2).
188.
Quoting Ibid. p. 163 (note 28) Though Ezra
knows of and uses the 'normal' Hebrew verb
for 'to marry' (laqah, cf. Ezra 2:61), he uses
other terms when he says they 'took' (nasa in
9:2, 12; 10:44) some of the daughters of th
land, or 'gave a dwelling to' (yasab* in 10:2,
10, 14, ,17-18) 'foreign women'. The former
verb is used elsewhere in the OT of 'to take as
a wife' in Ruth 1:4; 2 Chr. 11:31; 13:21; 24:3;
the three instances in Ezra, and Neh. 13:25.
Each of these references has foreign women,
multiple wives and/or concubines as the
object. The latter term is used only in Ezra
and Nehemiah (13:24, 27) and the accusative
is always foreign women. The LXX uses
kathizo* (to sit down, settle, live) to translate
this word, and kathizo* is never used to
translate any of the 'usual' words for marriage
(i.e., laqah, baal*, or nasa).
189.
Quoting Ibid. p.163 (note 29) Ezra uses yasa*
(of 'putting away' wives and children in 10:3,
19 in the Hiphil; cf. Qal in Deut. 24:2), and
277
278
End Notes
elsewhere in the OT garas* is used passively
only of divorced women in Lev. 21:7, 14;
22:13; Num. 30:9; and Ezek. 44:22 (BDB, p.
176); and salah* means to 'send away, dismiss'
(= divorce) with acc. of wife in Deut. 22:19,
29; 24:1, 3,4; Jer. 3:1, 8; Mal. 2:16 (all piel),
and fig. in Isa. 50:1 (Paul). W.R. Eichhorst
('Ezra's Ethics on Intermariage and Divorce',
Grace Journal 10:3 [1969] 23) thinks that
Ezra also carried out this divorce action
'according to the law' (10:3) and followed
Deut. 24: 1-4. This not only misunderstands
Deut. 24: 1-4, but it fails to see that 'the law'
according to which they should 'put away'
their women refers to that law in 9:1-2, 10-12
and 14 which Ezra was confessing: 'shall we
again break Thy commandments and
intermarry with the people who commit these
abominations'. the law in view is Deut. 7:3
and exod. 34:16, not Deut. 24: 1-4.
190.
Ibid. p. 163
191.
MacArthur, John; John MacArthur's Bible
Studies on Divorce, (Matt. 19:1-12), (Moody
Press, Chicago 1983) p. 44
192.
Augustine, Saint, Adulterous Marriages,
Translated by Charles T. Huegelmeyer, M.M.
Maryknoll, New York 1955)
193.
Lanely, Carl, The Divorce Myth, (Bethany
House Pub. Minn. Minn. 1981) quoting( J.
Staffold Wright, The Date of Ezra's Coming to
Jerusalem (London: The tyndale Press, 1948)
pp. 23-28) p. 36193.193.193.
194.
Ibid. p. 39
195.
Ibid. p. 39
196.
KDOTC, Introduction to Malachi, 10:423
End Notes
197.
Isaksson, Abel, Marriage and Ministry, p. 27
198.
KDOTC; Mal. 2:13-16
199. Edersheim, A., Life and Times of
Jesus(MacDonald, MacLean, Virginia) Bk.II p.149150
200. Ibid. Bk. II:126
201. Ibid. Bk. II:129
202. Lenski, R.C.H. New Testament Commentary,
(Augsburg Pub. House, Minn. MN 1943) Matt. 14::3,4
203. Flavius Josheph, William Whiston,
translator/editor, Works of Flavius Josephus (Reprint
1974, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI) vol. IV
p. 19; Antiq. XVIII 5.1
204. Edersheim, A. (1883). Life and Times of Jesus,
(MacDonlad, MacLean, Virginia) p. Bk.III 393
205.Ibid. Bk. III p. 658
206. Ibid. Bk. IV p. 332
207. Ibid. Bk. III p. 671-675
208. Lenski, N.T. Comm.; Matt. 5:1
209.The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church,
(1915); Ch. XXIV Sec. V
210. Ramm, Bernard, Protestant Biblical
Interpretation (W.A. Wilde, Boston, 1956 p.120-128
211. Edersheim, Life and Times, p. Bk. IV: 334
212. Shaner, D.W., A Christian View of Divorce
(Leiden E.J. Brill 1969) p. 11,12
213. Ibid. p. 146 quoting Fee
214. Ibid. p. 145 quoting Fee
215. Ibid. p. 137
279
280
End Notes
216. Ibid. p. 147
217. MacCorkle, Douglas God’s Special Secret (MBM
Books, Cocoa Beach, FL 1993
218. Edersheim, Life and Times, ("So, according to
many commentators. See Meyer) ) Bk. IV: 332
219. Heth; Wehham; Jesus and Divorce, p. 157,8
220. NSRB; comment on II Pet. 1:20 p.1339
221. J. Carl Laney; The Divorce Myth, (Bethany
House, Minn. Minn. 1981) p. 53
222. Heth, Wenham, Jesus and Divorce: The reader
should refer to this work as the modern foundation of
the divorce debate. Heth and Wenham lay out all the
elements of the ancient and modern controversy on the
divorce texts. They side with the primary concept of
the Early Church View, which Heth refers to as “noremarriage-this-side-of-death.”
223. Ibid, p. 19
224. Ibid. p 21 ; Heth and Wenham acknowledge that
the early church father's had the advantage of living
and learning in an era where the ancient languages
were their common tongue. Therefore their
understanding of the (Matt. 5:32;19:9) texts may have
been more clear to them. After stating that there were
long debates among the fathers about some doctrines,
but regarding divorce and remarriage this was not so:
"In contrast, on the subject of divorce and remarriage
there was practically no dispute in the early church: for
the first five centuries there was virtual unanimity on
this issue from one end of the Roman empire to the
other
225. Ibid. p. 22
226. Ibid. p. 73
End Notes
227. Ibid. p. 75
228. Ibid. p. 38
229. Ibid. p. 42 Heth and Wenhan quoting Stromata
230. Ibid. p. 44
231. Ibid. p. 167
281